Final Report DCC-07

Development of a

Strategic Business-project Alignment in Downstream and Chemicals Projects

CII Member Companies

Owners Contractors Service Providers

AdvanSix Alfred Miller Contracting Accenture
Air Products APTIM Autodesk, Inc.
Albemarle Corporation Baker Concrete Construction Inc. AVEVA Solutions Ltd.
Anheuser-Busch InBev Barton Malow Company AWP University
Aramco Services Company Bechtel Group, Inc. Construct-X, LLC
Archer Daniels Midland Company Black & Veatch Continuum Advisory Group
Architect of the Capitol Blanchard Industrial, LLC Dassault Systèmes SE
Ascend Performance Materials Burns & McDonnell Deloitte
BHP Billiton Chiyoda Corporation Detect Technologies
Cargill, Inc. CRB DyCat Solutions
Chevron Day & Zimmermann Global Site Solutions
ConocoPhillips Digital Construction Works Group ASI
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Emerson Hilti Corporation
Covestro LLC Exyte U.S. Inc. I.M.P.A.C.T.
DTE Energy Faithful+Gould iConstruct
DuPont Fluor Corporation Insight-AWP Inc.
Eastman Chemical Company H+M Industrial EPC Layher, Inc.
ExxonMobil Corporation Hargrove Engineers + Constructors O3 Solutions
General Electric Company Hatch Oracle USA, Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline JGC Corporation Pathfinder, LLC
Global Infrastructure Partners KBR PTAG, Inc.
INEOS Group Holdings S. A. Kiewit Corporation SkyCam Aviation, Inc.
Johnson & Johnson Larsen & Toubro Limited T. A. Cook Consultants Inc.
Koch Industries, Inc. MasTec Power Corporation Valency Inc.
Los Alamos National Laboratory Matrix Service Company Verum Partners
LyondellBasell McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. Zurich
Marathon Petroleum Corporation McDermott International, Inc.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command PCL Constructors, Inc.
New York Power Authority PLH Group
NOVA Chemicals Corporation POWER Engineers, Inc.
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Richard Industrial Group
Nutrien Samsung C&T
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Techint Engineering & Construction
ONEOK, Inc. Technip Energies
Ontario Power Generation thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (USA), Inc.
Petronas Toyo Engineering Corporation
Phillips 66 United Engineers &Constructors, Inc.
Public Service Electric & Gas Company Victaulic
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) Wood
SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation Worley
Sanofi Zachry Group
Shell
Sila Nanotechnologies Inc.
Smithsonian Institution
Southern Company
TC Energy
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Dow Chemical Company
The Procter & Gamble Company
The Williams Companies, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of State
U.S. General Services Administration
Zachry Corporation
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Strategic Business-project Alignment

in Downstream and Chemicals Projects

Construction Industry Institute

Research Team DCC-07, Capital Efficiency Scorecard

for Downstream and Chemicals Projects

Final Report DCC-07

March 2022
© 2022 Construction Industry Institute™

The University of Texas at Austin

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members
are permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed, and no modifications may be made
without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies.
Volume discounts may be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member
prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

 Executive Summary

Capital projects in the downstream and chemicals sector can be large and complex,
requiring significant capital investments and lengthy periods of development. Such
projects face many challenges, including unsatisfactory cost and schedule performance,
stagnant returns on investment, and unpredictability. To keep this industry sector
competitive, then, it is critical to improve both capital effectiveness (i.e., selecting and
doing the most appropriate capital projects) and capital efficiency (i.e., executing these
capital projects in an optimal way).

As part of its ambitious goal of improving capital efficiency by 50% by 2024, the CII
Downstream and Chemicals Sector Committee sponsored Research Team DCC-07
(RT-DCC-07) to undertake this project. The goal of this study was to develop a capital
efficiency scorecard based on an assessment of the management processes that
improve project capital effectiveness and efficiency. In pursuit of its research goal,
the team explored state-of-the-art capital efficiency. Initial outcomes included defining
project capital efficiency and identifying four key areas for improvement.

During this sequence, RT-DCC-07 characterized 28 management processes that,

when implemented effectively, have a positive impact on project capital efficiency. The
team also developed 125 questions to evaluate the implementation of these effective
management practices. The team then assigned these management processes to the
following two categories and four groups:

Category A: Corporate Capital Management

Group 1: Corporate and Financial Strategy
Group 2: Capital Governance and Processes

Category B: Capital Project Management

Group 3: Capital Project Expectations
Group 4: Project Planning and Delivery

To complete developing the scorecard, the team used two rounds of surveys to
determine the relative importance of the management processes and to develop
questions for their respective assessment. The team then consulted the perspectives
of both business and project teams as it weighted the components of the scorecard.

iii
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

RT-DCC-07 pilot-tested the resulting Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard (PCES)

on actual projects. Because it incorporates key management processes, the PCES
permits users to assess how well they are implementing the management processes
that have a positive impact on project capital efficiency:
• The PCES assessment process is intended to build strategic alignment
between the business and project teams.
• Optimal implementation requires alignment of these teams at the end of the
Business Planning phase and beginning of the Front End Planning phase.
• A higher PCES score means a higher level of implementation, which leads to
better project capital efficiency.
• Using the scorecard can help industry professionals identify areas of strength
and opportunities for improved project capital effectiveness and efficiency.

iv
 Contents

iii

1. Introduction 1

2. Identification of Management Processes that 5

Affect Capital Efficiency

3. Using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard 19

4. Conclusion and Future Research 35

References 39

Appendix A: Background Study 43

Appendix B: Management Processes and 47

49

55

57

61
 Chapter 1:
Introduction

Organizations often expend significant resources to develop capital projects (Kim

and Choi, 2019). During the operation phase, project profitability is subject to external
factors such as feedstock prices and market demand (Magdirila, 2016; Vătavu et
al., 2018). Thus, both project development and operation have impacts on capital
effectiveness (i.e., selecting and carrying out the right capital projects) and capital
efficiency (i.e., delivering capital projects in an optimal way).

Although executing capital projects efficiently is a key business objective (Scott-

Young and Samson, 2008), capital projects often underperform. In an analysis of 500
oil and gas capital projects of $1 billion or more completed between 2014 and 2019,
Fane reported, a 2019 Ernst & Young survey found that 60% had schedule delays and
38% encountered cost overruns (Fane, 2020). In addition, the return on investment of
capital projects in this sector has been found to be around 2.45% (CSI Market, 2021),
and it shows no signs of improvement (Satapathy, 2019). To be successful, managers
must be better at selecting and delivering projects (Hamilton et al., 2019). In other
words, they must improve the capital effectiveness and efficiency of their downstream
and chemicals projects.

1.1. Point of Departure

Upon formation of Research Team DCC-07 (RT-DCC-07), its members conducted
a literature review and interviews to gain an understanding of state-of-the-art capital
efficiency. They observed that capital efficiency has been defined in a variety of ways
and assessed by using different metrics. These preparations showed the team that this
assessment needed to be conducted at multiple levels to consider project, portfolio, and
company. The interviews also found the following features of capital efficiency today:
• The industry lacks a consensus definition of capital efficiency.
• Capital efficiency is measured in a variety of ways and the same measures are
used in flexible manners. Common measures used to assess capital efficiency
include net present value (NPV), return on investment (ROI), and internal rate
of return (IRR).
• Capital efficiency assessment is conducted at multiple levels, including at
the portfolio, project, and processing unit levels, but mainly it is carried out
at the project level – from initial business development to project technical
definition – to support making key decisions on the project.
• Assessing capital efficiency is a cross-functional effort that involves
participants from corporate, portfolio, and project management.

1
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

The literature review and interviews gave the team an understanding of the state
of the art in capital efficiency. (Appendix A contains detailed information on the team’s
processes.) RT-DCC-07 identified research gaps and defined the following objectives
for its research:
1. Define capital efficiency and develop ways to assess it.
2. Identify and characterize the processes that business and project units
should implement through joint collaboration and strategic alignment to
promote capital efficiency.
3. Establish a framework for assessing the implementation level of these
management processes.

1.2. Research Objectives

The main objective of this research was to develop a scorecard to assess the
implementation of management processes that affect project capital efficiency. The
research team set and accomplished the following specific objectives:
• Define project capital efficiency.
• Pinpoint capital efficiency key improvement areas.
• Identify and characterize management processes that are expected to affect
capital efficiency.
• Create questions to assess the level of implementation of these management
processes.
• Determine the relative importance of the management processes and their
questions.
• Incorporate these management processes into a framework and develop a
scorecard.

2
 Chapter 1. Introduction

1.3. Research Methodology

The team’s research process can be broken down into four major steps, which
are presented in Figure 1 along with their corresponding research methods. These
research steps are described in the following chapters.

Research Steps Research Methods

• Define project capital efficiency Literature Review

• Develop capital efficiency key improvement areas SME Panel (RT-DCC-07)

• Identify management processes with SME Panel

descriptions and assessment questions (RT-DCC-07)

• Determine the relative importance of the Survey #1

management processes and their questions Survey #2

• Incorporate the management processes SME Panel

into a framework and develop a scorecard (RT-DCC-07)

Figure 1. Research Steps and Methodology

1.4. Scope Limitations

The scope of this research focused on management processes that business and
project units implement during the Business Planning and early Front End Planning
(Feasibility and Concept stages) phases of the capital project. Although other
management processes could leverage capital efficiency during later project phases,
they are not included in this research.

In this report, the perceptions of the practices and their relative importance reflect
the perceptions predominant in a group of organizations from the downstream and
chemicals sector. This perspective may differ from other sectors and industries.

3
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

1.5. How to Read this Report

The rest of this report is structured in the following way:
• Chapter 2 starts with the definition of project capital efficiency and its key
improvement areas. It then elaborates on the identification of management
processes, as well as on the development of their descriptions and
assessment questions, and then evaluates the relative importance of these
management processes and assessment questions.
• Chapter 3 introduces the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard (PCES) and
presents its user guide, which includes information about when to use the
PCES, who owns it, and how it should be used on capital projects. This
chapter also shares findings from the PCES pilot projects.
• Chapter 4 presents the conclusions from this study, PCES’ value proposition in
CII’s research spectrum, and the path forward.

4
 Chapter 2:
Identifying Which Management Processes
Affect Capital Efficiency

This chapter describes foundational steps in the development of this research. It

elaborates on how RT-DCC-07 identified the key management processes, developed
descriptions for them, and devised questions to assess their implementation. The team
then used one survey to obtain the relative importance of the management processes
and a second survey to craft their respective assessment questions.

2.1. Definition of Project Capital Efficiency

Literature shows that capital efficiency can be addressed at different levels:
• The project level (Biddle, Hilary, and Verdi, 2009)
• The portfolio level (Shah, 2012)
• The aggregated level for a company (Cutillas Gomariz and Sánchez Ballesta,
2014) – because of the difficulty involved in making this final type of examination
and the lack of precision in its results, some researchers disfavor measuring
capital efficiency at the aggregated company level (Gao and Yu, 2020).

Many management executives prefer to measure capital efficiency at the project

and project portfolio levels (Shah, 2012). Analyzing capital efficiency at the project level
captures the details in project development, execution, and operation. At the project
level, capital efficiency still involves portfolio and corporate management to ensure
that the project meets the strategic and business goals of the organization while it is
being developed (Kissi et al., 2013).

In the downstream and chemicals sector, the success of a capital project depends
heavily on efficient execution, as Scott-Young and Samson emphasized (Scott-Young
and Samson 2008). How well a project operates later directly influences its profitability
(Langerak et al., 2010), and decisions on when the capital project is deemed operational
represent a critical factor to maximize the revenue if the operation matches an optimal
market window (Fang and Lahdelma, 2016). All key project decisions on development,
execution, and operation require input from business and project units. (Yun, 2013).

5
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Researchers have defined capital efficiency in various ways, with no consensus

definition emerging in the initial study. Without such a definition, though, researchers
and practitioners are likely to interpret and apply capital efficiency differently. Thus
RT-DCC-07 settled on the following definition for capital efficiency at the project level.

Project Capital Efficiency (at the project level):

The measure of an organization’s ability to define, develop, and manage a
competitive project that optimizes return on investment over its lifecycle.

It is important to emphasize that project capital efficiency can be applied not just
to for-profit capital projects. It may also be applied to environmental, regulatory, or
business-sustaining projects. In these not-for-profit projects, capital efficiency is still
relevant so that capital is invested efficiently and that the alternatives, regardless of
the expected returns, are examined (Goldman Sachs, 2019).

RT-DCC-07’s look at project-level capital efficiency was not solely based on the
understanding it gained from the literature review or the preliminary interviews. After a
thorough discussion and analysis within the context of the downstream and chemicals
sector, the team decided to approach this study at the project level and offers the
following justifications:
• The project level is the optimal level, providing an appropriate level of
granularity to identify which elements lead to the improvement of capital
efficiency. For instance, if ROI is used as a capital-efficiency measure, the
difference between two ROIs indicates the improvement of capital efficiency.
Looking at the corporate or portfolio level does not pragmatically help to detect
which action that was taken led to a given improvement, since many projects
might be in play.
The question might be asked, “What led to the 0.5% ROI improvement of a
chemicals company or one of its portfolios?” Answers, however, are difficult
to come by because there are too many high-level variables. Instead, the
management processes that ultimately lead to better project decisions, good
project execution, and competitive production all contribute to capital efficiency
and, being implemented at the project level, are still manageable. Importantly,
if all of an organization’s projects are capital-efficient, its portfolios and the
organization itself must have improved capital efficiency as well.
• The project represents an important level where the business objective
is conveyed for execution. Capital projects in the downstream and chemicals
sector are 1) often large and complex, 2) might take years to develop, and
3) could operate for decades. For a refinery plant, its design capacity,
construction duration, operation performance, and maintenance strategy all

6
 Chapter 2. Identifying Which Management Processes Affect Capital Efficiency

affect the way it operates to generate revenue. All of these components have
to align with business objectives; no single team makes all of the decisions
regarding them. To ensure alignment in order to improve capital efficiency,
management should utilize appropriate vehicles to carry out its processes.
These vehicles should involve different teams – business and project – and be
applied at the project level during the initial phase of the project.
• The project level is ideal for controlling the CAPEX, which by any
capital efficiency measure is a key influencer. For an ethylene plant project,
a significant part of the billion-dollar investment would comprise a major
processing unit, such as a steam cracker with 1.5 million metric tons of
annual capacity. Focusing on capital efficiency at the project level will enable
closer scrutiny of the technologies adopted in processing units – capacities
determined for the operation of a project – and the resources required for
engineering and construction, all of which directly affect capital efficiency.

2.2. Development of Capital Efficiency Key Improvement Areas

If project capital efficiency is to be improved, then observers must be able to quantify

the improvements. That is, it is first necessary to measure capital efficiency. Both
researchers and industrial professionals measure capital efficiency using such metrics
as NPV, IRR, or ROI. Changes in metric values are used to capture improvements in
capital efficiency. However, the first challenge in this method is that no sole metric is
considered to be an absolute metric of capital efficiency. Each metric might represent
only one component of capital efficiency. Also, according to the interviews, metrics are
applied flexibly. There is no coherent way of using certain measures. These challenges
make it hard to quantify the impact of implementing key management processes directly
through the metric values at the project level.

Prieto identified nine elements that ultimately influence project capital efficiency
(Prieto 2014). Based on those nine elements, the research team developed four key
improvement areas of project capital efficiency:

• Investment • Returns
• Schedule • Operation

Using the key improvement areas creates intermediate steps between the
implementation of the management practices and improvements in project capital
efficiency. In other words, if a management process can positively affect one or
several of the key improvement areas, it is considered to have a positive impact on
capital efficiency. Using key improvement areas correlates the implementation of the
management process to project capital efficiency without quantifying the improvement.

7
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

This still helps the team evaluate the potential impacts of the management processes
on project capital efficiency. Figure 2 shows the key improvement areas and their
sub-areas.

Investment Returns
Total Cash
Product Operation
Installed Flow
Price Capacity
Cost Optimization
O&M Inventory
Cost
Capital
Efficiency
Key Improvement
Areas Shutdown Facility
Total Phase
Schedule Overlap and Lifetime
Turnaround

Development Duration Operation Duration

Figure 2. Key Improvement Areas of Project Capital Efficiency

2.3. Identification and Categorization of Relevant Management

Processes
A management process is described as a process of setting goals, planning,
organizing, controlling, and leading the execution of an activity (Kumar, 2018). Guru
defined the management process as a well-defined system functioning for the same
purpose that involves multiple participants with different functions or roles (Guru,
2021). This study focuses on identifying management processes that apply to the
Business Planning phase and early Front End Planning phases of a capital project.
These phases are critical for capital efficiency because they happen when it is critical
to align business objectives with the project development (Yun, 2013). They are also
the time to make high-level project decisions that further help clearly define the project
scope and effectively execute the project in later project phases (Collins et al., 2017).
Figure 3 illustrates when the management process should be applied.

To identify and characterize the management processes, the research team followed
a five-step procedure to finalize the list of management processes into categories and
groups (see Figure 4).

8
 Chapter 2. Identifying Which Management Processes Affect Capital Efficiency

Capital Project Timeline in Phases

Business Front End Planning Design and

Startup
Planning Feasibility Concept
Detailed
Scope
Construction
Project Initiation

Proposed
Management Processes

*The width of a project phase does not indicate its actual duration.

Figure 3. Application Points of the Proposed Management Processes

Step 1 Gather existing management processes (tasks, or work

functions) used during initial project development from the
Gathering & Collecting organizations of research team members.

Step 2 Screen and compile an initial list of management processes

that apply during the Business Planning phase and the
Screening & Compiling Feasibility and Concept stages in the Front End Planning phase.

Step 3 Consolidate and merge similar management processes and

develop their scope descriptions, implementation assessment
Condensing & Merging questions, and stakeholders.

Step 4 Assess the relationship between the management process and

Assessing Links to KIAs key improvement areas (KIAs) and map the relationships.

Step 5 Review and categorize management processes into different

groups and categories and incorporate them into the framework
Reviewing & Categorizing to develop the scorecard.

Figure 4. Steps Used to Identify and Characterize the Management Processes

9
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

By following this procedure, the research team started with 76 proposed management
processes and ended up with a final list of 28 (from Step 1 to Step 4). In Step 5, the
team assigned these 28 management processes to two categories – Corporate Capital
Management and Capital Project Deployment. Further, it divided the management
processes in Category A into two groups – Corporate and Financial Strategy, and
Capital Governance and Processes. Similarly, it classified the Category B management
processes into two groups – Capital Project Expectations, and Project Planning and
Delivery. Table 1 presents the final list of management processes. (The relationship
between a management process and the key improvement area(s) is presented in
Appendix B.)

Table 1. List of Management Processes

Group 1: Corporate and Financial Strategy

A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning

Corporate Capital Management

A.1.2. Strategic Scenario Analysis

A.1.3. Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization
A.1.4. Country and Geographic Profile Assessment
Category A:

A.1.5. Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis

A.1.6. Project Risk Assessment

Group 2: Capital Governance and Processes

A.2.1. Project Governance

A.2.2. Stakeholder Management
A.2.3. Project Planning Process
A.2.4. Project Value Assurance Review
A.2.5. Portfolio Resource Allocation

10
 Chapter 2. Identifying Which Management Processes Affect Capital Efficiency

Table 1. List of Management Processes (continued)

Group 3: Capital Project Expectations

B.3.1. Project Objectives Definition and Alignment

B.3.2. Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Expectations
B.3.3. Quality Expectations
B.3.4. Project Target Setting
B.3.5. Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities
Capital Project Deployment

B.3.6. Integrated Project Controls Expectations

B.3.7. Operation and Maintenance Expectations
Category B:

B.3.8. Benchmarking Expectations

B.3.9. Best Practices Selection
B.3.10. Lessons Learned Plan

Group 4: Project Planning and Delivery

B.4.1. Project Scope Development

B.4.2. Site Condition, Infrastructure, and Accessibility Assessment
B.4.3. Project Team Organization
B.4.4. Project Standards and Specifications
B.4.5. Best Practices Implementation Plan
B.4.6. Contracting Strategy and Management
B.4.7. Change Management

11
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

2.4. Development of Management Process Descriptions and

Assessment Questions
After listing management processes, RT-DCC-07 developed information for each:
• A high-level description helps participants align on the definition and scope of
each management process.
• A set of questions helps participants ask the right questions to assess their
implementation efforts. For the 28 management processes, the researchers
developed 125 questions.
• A list of key stakeholders shows who is responsible for and/or involved in each
process, helping users engage the right people. The focus group compiled
these sets of stakeholders by referring to the types of management personnel
in business and project units defined by Yun (Yun, 2013).
Figure 5 presents an example of one management process' set of information.

A.1.4 Country and Geographic Profile Assessment

Description:
Country and Geographic Profile Assessment is a high-level assessment process
to identify and analyze the profile of both project location and target markets. The
assessment should also address the supply-chain risks of the project location,
logistics to the target markets, and political factors considering the intended final
products and production capacities of the project.

Implementation Assessment Questions:

1. Has there been an assessment of the characteristics and risks associated

with the location of the project?

2. Is a risk mitigation plan in place to address risks associated with the location
of the project?

3. Has the cost and schedule impact of unmitigated location risks been
evaluated for inclusion of contingency allowance?

4. Have the country and geographic profile risks been documented, agreed
upon, and communicated to all stakeholders?

Management Process Stakeholders:

Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Marketing/Sales Manager, Contract/
Legal Manager, Operation/Production Manager, Risk Manager, Portfolio/Program
Manager, Project Manager, Procurement Manager, Construction Manager.

Figure 5. A Sample of the Information Collected for Each Management Process

12
 Chapter 2. Identifying Which Management Processes Affect Capital Efficiency

Tables 2 to 6 present descriptions for the 28 management processes. The

complete information for each management process – including questions, roles, and
key improvement areas – can be found in Appendix F.

Table 2. Descriptions of Management Processes – Group 1

A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning

Corporate Capital Planning is a process of identifying the capital expenditures (CAPEX) and
major investment decisions at both portfolio and project levels by aligning with corporate
vision, fiscal capacity, and market forecast. The plan can be either long-term or short-term.
In the latter case, the Corporate Capital Plan can be incorporated as a part of the corporate
annual report.

A.1.2. Strategic Scenario Analysis

Strategic Scenario Analysis is a process to identify the optimal project development plan
by analyzing the forecast market including the feedstock or raw material supply, finished
product values, and their price fluctuations. The Strategic Scenario Analysis can result in a
decision to accelerate, defer, or even abandon a project.
Group 1: Corporate and Financial Strategy

A.1.3. Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization

Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization is a comprehensive process with primary
goals of maximizing certain factors including expected returns, as well as minimizing
the cost and financial risk of the entire portfolio by considering the potential project. This
process should include a portfolio cash flow analysis based on adding the estimated cash
flow of the project to help identify the opportunity to optimize the portfolio cash flow by
improving the project development plan.

A.1.4. Country and Geographic Profile Assessment

Country and Geographic Profile Assessment is a high-level assessment process to identify
and analyze the profile of both project location and target markets. The assessment should
also address the supply-chain risks of the project location, logistics to the target markets,
and political factors considering the intended final products and production capacities of the
project.

A.1.5. Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis

Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis is a process of analyzing the expected
capital investment and returns to identify the return of the investment (ROI) using the metrics
such as net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). It should be initiated by
identifying hurdle rates or minimum financial return requirements that the corporate has set
internally as targets to achieve in the investment. This analysis is expected to improve major
project development decisions including operation life cycle and plan for future expansion,
among others. For a large capital project whose investments and returns have a significant
influence on the corporate’s cash flow, an Equity-to-Debt ratio study should also be included
in the analysis to quantify the financial impact.
For non-financially driven, regulatory, or environmental projects, the minimum financial
requirement may not apply. However, this analysis remains essential to inform the corporate
of the project financial figures.

A.1.6. Project Risk Assessment

Project Risk Assessment is a process to identify, assess, and manage risk during project
development. The project team evaluates the impact of all potential risks, including
commercial, financial, environmental, technical, and project execution risks. Then, mitigation
plans are developed.

13
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Table 3. Descriptions of Management Processes – Group 2

A.2.1. Project Governance

Project Governance is a process of establishing and adhering to a capital project
governance model. It should include budget authorization to review and approve the capital
expenditure in a timely manner. This process involves identifying gatekeepers who are the
key persons with the authority to make recommendations or decisions.
Group 2: Capital Governance and Processes

A.2.2. Stakeholder Management

Stakeholders are individuals and groups, both inside and outside the organization, who
can influence the success of the project, and anyone who can be impacted by the project
execution. Stakeholder Management is a process used to identify stakeholders, define their
roles and responsibilities, manage expectations, and align the stakeholders throughout the
project life-cycle.

A.2.3. Project Planning Process

Project Planning Process is a process for defining how the project will be planned. It may,
for instance, use stage gates to review project progress and for major decision-making in
project development or other planning methodology, such as agile or integrated project
delivery (IPD).

A.2.4. Project Value Assurance Review

Project Value Assurance Review is a corporate managerial process to monitor and assess
the project target values throughout the project development plan. Project Value is defined
as the benefit to the project that includes but is not limited to its financial value. The plan
contains a list of Project Value items to be reviewed and their respective assurance review
schedules.

A.2.5. Portfolio Resource Allocation

Portfolio Resource Allocation is a corporate-level management process to enable allocation
and optimization of the project resources at a portfolio or higher level to optimize the overall
capital efficiency and risk management. The allocable and transferable resources should
include project contingency, management reserve, staff, and materials.

14
 Chapter 2. Identifying Which Management Processes Affect Capital Efficiency

Table 4. Descriptions of Management Processes – Group 3

B.3.1. Project Objectives Definition and Alignment

Project Objectives Definition and Alignment is a process of defining, communicating, and
aligning on the objectives and priorities of the project delivery to meet the business strategy,
operation requirements, and production expectations set by the corporate. The process
should also identify the primary project drivers and their priorities in the project selection and
delivery including health and safety, cost, schedule, quality, sustainability, and security.

B.3.2. Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Expectations

HSE Expectations aims to establish the initial expectations for the achievement of
occupational health, safety, and environmental goals of the project. This process should
cover not only the expectations during construction but also during operation and
Group 3: Capital Project Expectations

maintenance. The HSE Expectations should lead to a plan to further develop detailed HSE
requirements.

B.3.3. Quality Expectations

Quality Expectations is a process to establish expectations for both the quality in the design
of the facility and the quality assurance and control (QA/QC) of the project delivery including
the activities in the engineering, procurement, construction, and CSU phases that impact the
quality of the project. The Quality Expectations must address key quality requirements for
the project standards and processes in execution and operation and they lead to a plan to
develop detailed quality standards and requirements.

B.3.4. Project Target Setting

The process of Project Target Setting aims to identify and set project targets including
the target duration of overall project development, target project cost limit according to
the commercial model created by the business team, environmental performance target,
and production target, among others. The objectives of this process are to assure the
commitment towards efficiency during the project development and to drive the project team
to improve the execution performance compared to internal or industry benchmarks. The
project targets should be conveyed to and understood by the project team, and they should
be further used as a guide in developing the project scope.

B.3.5. Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities

The process of Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities is to address potential
constraints during the project execution timeframe. These include major equipment and
long-lead items whose procurement could cause delays, local content requirements,
contractor capabilities, and unique requirements for commissioning and startup (CSU),
among others. This process should also identify opportunities to further optimize the
engineering, construction, procurement, and CSU phases of the project in front end
planning.

15
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Table 5. Descriptions of Management Processes – Group 3 (continued)

B.3.6. Integrated Project Controls Expectations

The process of Integrated Project Controls Expectations aims to establish the expectations
related to controlling, tracking, reporting, and forecasting project performance. These
include the cost, schedule, and productivity performance during the engineering,
procurement, construction, and CSU phases of the project.

B.3.7. Operation and Maintenance Expectations

The process of Operation and Maintenance Expectations is to set the expectations for the
operation and maintenance of the facility, including product quality and quantity, operation
safety, environmental impact, and maintenance philosophy. These expectations need to
Group 3: Capital Project Expectations (continued)

be considered in front end planning, engineering, procurement, construction, and CSU

phases of the project. They lead to a plan for the development of detailed operation and
maintenance requirements.

B.3.8. Benchmarking Expectations

The process of Benchmarking Expectations aims to identify benchmarking criteria and
timeline in various phases of the project. The process should start with benchmarking the
chosen technical solution that meets the business objective against peers and includes
benchmarking of project scope development in terms of high-level cost and schedule. This
process also covers identifying criteria for benchmarking the performance of engineering,
procurement, construction, and CSU activities. The Benchmarking Expectations lead to the
development of a detailed project benchmarking plan.

B.3.9. Best Practices Selection

Best Practice is defined as a disciplined practice used to improve project cost, schedule,
safety, quality, reliability, performance, and efficiency. A Best Practice requires collaboration,
participation, and interaction by project team members and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
for its implementation to realize the intended outcome. The Best Practices Selection is a
management process to identify, analyze, and confirm the Best Practices that apply to the
project development and operation.
Typical Best Practices for downstream and chemicals projects are (1) Class of Facility,
(2) Technology Selection, (3) Design-To-Capacity, (4) Process Simplification, (5) Waste
Minimization, (6) Energy Optimization, (7) Value Engineering, (8) Design and Engineering
Tools Selection, (9) Facility Standardization, (10) Constructability, (11) Modularization, (13)
Advanced Work Packaging (AWP), (14) Zero Accidents Techniques (ZAT), (15) Preventive
and Predictive Maintenance, (16) Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Analysis,
(17) Hazard and Operability Study, and (18) Facility Closure Requirement.

B.3.10. Lessons Learned Plan

The Lessons Learned Plan is a process of examining the existing lessons and knowledge
that are potentially beneficial to the project delivery. It should contain a plan to summarize
the applicable lessons and implement them in the project to avoid the recurrence of negative
lessons and promote the implementation of positive lessons. The process also includes
documenting lessons learned from the current project for future reference.

16
 Chapter 2. Identifying Which Management Processes Affect Capital Efficiency

Table 6. Descriptions of Management Processes – Group 4

B.4.1. Project Scope Development

Project Scope Development is a process of defining the project’s scope during front end
planning including the level of the scope that needs to be achieved. The process is to ensure
that the project meets the goals and strategies defined at corporate and portfolio levels.

B.4.2. Site Condition, Infrastructure, and Accessibility Assessment

Site Condition, Infrastructure, and Accessibility Assessment is a management process
to identify the characteristics of the project site including existing facilities, underground
conditions, potential environmental impacts, and current infrastructure status, as well as to
assess the infrastructure and accessibility requirements that need to be addressed in the
engineering, procurement, construction, and CSU phases.
Group 4: Project Planning and Delivery

B.4.3. Project Team Organization

Project Team Organization is the process of establishing a project organizational plan,
including the creation of an organizational chart, assignment of roles and responsibilities,
definition of the format, and frequency of communications among members for effective
project management. The process should also identify part-time and non-resident members
from different business units who are required to assist the project when needed. The
organizational chart does not necessarily need to have actual persons assigned to the
position at the time of its initial development.

B.4.4. Project Standards and Specifications

Project Standards and Specifications is a process of developing requirements and
guidelines that govern project engineering, procurement, construction, and CSU work.

B.4.5. Best Practices Implementation Plan

The Best Practices Implementation is a management process to develop an executable plan
to implement selected Best Practices during project development.

B.4.6. Contracting Strategy and Management

Contracting Strategy and Management is a process of developing a systematic framework
to define project delivery and contract strategies, as well as to manage project contracts
with their associated documents and procedures. This process should also include the
identification of dispute prevention techniques and resolution mechanisms that should be
used in the project.

B.4.7. Change Management

Change Management is a process of incorporating a balanced change culture for the
effective recognition, planning, evaluation, and management of changes. This process does
not only cover change management during project execution, but also the management
of project objectives and scope in the early phases of the project with collaboration and
alignment with the business team.

17
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

2.5. The Relative Importance of Management Processes and

Their Questions
The research team did not expect all management processes and questions to
have equal relevance. It used two surveys to determine the relative importance of the
management processes and their respective questions.
• Survey #1 captured the importance (as a value between 1 and 10) of the 28
management processes. The researchers collected a total of 81 responses
and determined that 63 of these responses were complete and valid (18 from
the business team plus 45 from the project team).
From the survey responses, the team calculated the relative importance of
each process and incorporated that as weighting in the PCES' calculation
process. Survey #1 found that 27 of the 28 management processes had a
relative importance (the mean value of the total valid responses) greater than
7 out of 10. Table 7 presents the five most important processes.

Table 7. The Five Most Important Management Processes

Relative
Rank Management Processes Importance
1 B.4.1 Project Scope Development 9.00

2 B.3.1 Project Objectives Definition and Alignment 8.86

3 A.1.5 Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis 8.75

4 A.1.1 Corporate Capital Planning 8.59

5 A.1.6 Project Risk Assessment 8.56

The five most important processes come from three of the four groups and
both categories, and all had a mean greater than 8.5 out of 10. They cover
project scope and objectives, financial analysis and capital planning to support
the project, and risks associated with the project. Both the business and
project units around the project need to prioritize these five management
processes for strategic alignment in their collaboration during early project
phases. (Appendix C details Survey #1 and its data analysis.)

• Survey #2 captured the relative importance of the assessment questions under

each management process (a total of 125 questions across 28 processes).
The researchers disseminated the survey among the members of RT-DCC-07.
From this effort, they collected 11 valid responses from 18 industrial members,
and from these responses the team calculated the relative importance of
the questions and incorporated this information into its PCES scorecard.
(Appendix D includes further information on Survey #2)

18
 Chapter 3:
Using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

This chapter guides using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard (PCES) to
promote alignment and assess implementation of important management processes.

3.1. What Is the PCES?

The Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard (PCES) is an assessment tool that promotes
strategic alignment between the business and project units for competitive investment
decisions and effective project delivery in the downstream and chemicals sector. As
Figure 6 shows, the PCES assesses the implementation of management processes
that drive project capital efficiency and require strategic alignment between business
and project teams. The research team built the PCES in Microsoft Excel and Microsoft
Visual Basic for Applications. The scorecard requires the user to enable Macros to
perform all of its embedded functions.

50 %
RT DCC-07
25 % 75 %

Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Project Name:
Project Owner/Client: 75 % 100%

Project Type:
Project Phase:
Project
Project Manager: Capital Efficiency
The Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard (PCES) is an assessment tool for strategic alignment between Assessment Facilitator:
the business and project teams for competitive investment decisions and effective project delivery in
the Downstream and Chemicals sector. The tool uses Management Processes and their
Assessment Date (MM/DD/YYYY): Score
implementation efforts in the early phase of a capital project to assess the business-project alignment
that leads to better project definition and drives the project capital efficiency. Category
Category A Score

The PCES is developed by CII Research Team DCC-07 (RT-DCC-07). Please use this link, to access the CII Corporate Capital Management 70%
Knowledge Base for further information. GroupScore GroupScore
Group 1 Group 2
Copyright © 2022 Construction Industry Institute
Corporate and Financial Strategy 55% Capital Governance and Processes 85%
The University of Texas at Austin
A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning 63% A.2.1. Project Governance 83%

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal A.1.2. Strategic Scenario Analysis 74% A.2.2. Stakeholder Management 100%
recipients. CII members are permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided
that an informational copy is furnished to CII. A.1.3. Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization 0 A.2.3. Project Planning Process 100%

This tool and its relative research product are available to non-members by purchase; however, no A.1.4. Country and Geographic Profile Assessment 100% A.2.4. Project Value Assurance Review 60%
copies may be made or distributed, and no modifications may be made, without prior written
permission from CII. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this A.1.5. Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis 18% A.2.5. Portfolio Resource Allocation 80%
work without modification for educational use.
A.1.6. Project Risk Assessment 25%

Category
Category B Score

Capital Project Deployment 70%

GroupScore GroupScore
Group 3 Group 4
Capital Project Expectations 78% Project Planning and Delivery 80%
B.3.1. Project Objectives Definition and Alignment 67% B.4.1. Project Scope Development 100%

B.3.2. Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Expectations 80% B.4.2. Site Condition, Infrastructure, & Accessibility Assessment 0

B.3.3. Quality Expectations 39% B.4.3. Project Team Organization 80%

B.3.4. Project Target Setting 100% B.4.4. Project Standards and Specifications 74%

B.3.5. Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities 100% B.4.5. Best Practices Implementation Plan 73%

B.3.6. Integrated Project Controls Expectations 100% B.4.6. Contracting Strategy and Management 100%

B.3.7. Operation and Maintenance Expectations 79% B.4.7. Change Management 52%

B.3.8. Benchmarking Expectations 39%

Export PDF Summary Report Export PDF Detail Report
B.3.9. Best Practices Selection 74%

B.3.10. Lessons Learned Plan 100%

Figure 6. The Opening and Concluding Worksheets of the PCES

19
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

3.2. When to Use the PCES

The scorecard should be used for assessments between the end of the Business
Planning phase and the beginning of the Front End Planning phase, as Figure 7
illustrates. RT-DCC-07 recommends using the PCES for assessment at the end of
the Business Planning phase and the end of the Concept stage of Front End Planning.

Capital Project Timeline in Phases

Business Front End Planning Design and

Startup
Planning Feasibility Concept
Detailed
Scope
Construction
Project Initiation

PCES Assessment Period

*The width of a project phase does not indicate its actual duration.

Figure 7. Timing of the PCES Assessment Period

3.3. Who Should Own the PCES Assessment

The PCES Champion should own the assessment. A PCES Champion is a person
or group in the organization that is involved in the capital project development from the
start and is in a position to ensure the integration of business and project inputs in the
assessment throughout the lifecycle of the project. This PCES Champion can be either
the project sponsor who owns the capital project and provides resources to support
its development and execution, or the capital project director who is in a position to
have an early conversation with the business team and ensure that the business and
project teams are in alignment.

3.4. How to Use PCES

The research team recommends using the tool in two ways:
1. Full Assessment in a Workshop – RT-DCC-07 recommends using this approach
first, since it involves many participants from both the business and project units.
2. Simplified Assessment in a Pre-alignment Meeting – This way involves fewer
people and gives a quick understanding of the project development status quo.

PCES Full Assessment – Workshop

The full assessment should be conducted in a workshop format with participants
from both the business and project teams. This full-scale assessment is expected
to last between two and four hours. Before the workshop, send the scorecard to the
participants to help them get familiar with its content. This will reduce workshop duration.

20
 Chapter 3. Using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

PCES Assessment: Workshop Facilitator

A facilitator is required to lead the workshop. This person should be independent
of both the business and project teams. The main function of the facilitator is to enable
assessment participants to discuss implementation of the management processes,
obtain answers to management process questions based on their consensus, and
record the evidence of implementation, as well as further action items under each
management process.

PCES Assessment: Workshop Participants

To have sufficient input during the assessment, personnel from the business and
project teams are recommended to participate in the workshop. Table 8 provides lists
of the suggested personnel from each team.

Table 8. Suggested Workshop Participants

Business Team Project Team

• Business Unit Manager • Capital Project Director/Manager

• Project/Executive Sponsor • Project Manager
• Portfolio/Program Manager • Project Controls Manager
• Finance Manager • Engineering Manager
• Corporate Risk Manager • Process/Mechanical Engineer
• Investment Officer • Reliability Engineer
• Corporate Planning Manager • QA/QC Manager/Engineer
• Operation and Production • HES Manager/Engineer
Manager • Estimator/Scheduler
• Procurement/Contracting Manager • Engineering/EPC Contractor
• Technology Officer Representative

Please note:
• During the early phases of a capital project, certain roles – especially on
the project team – will not have been assigned or even identified. Under
such circumstances, the team should invite professionals who possess the
competence or the authority to temporarily fill these positions in the workshop.
If a project is lacking a significant proportion of the suggested workshop
participants or their competencies, this shortfall indicates that the project is not
yet ready for assessment.

21
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

The Scorecard Procedure for Conducting a PCES Assessment

To use the scorecard in a workshop, generally follow the following steps:

Step 1: Download and open the scorecard.

This first step requires the facilitator to enable Macros in the computer to enable full
functionality.

Step 2: Start with PCES basics.

The scorecard has seven navigational tabs across the bottom of the screen (see
Figure 8). The workshop should begin by visiting the Welcome and PCES 101 tabs,
to review the basics of the tool before the assessment begins.

Project Info & Assessment Category Category

Welcome PCES 101 Dashboard
Instructions Attendance A B

Figure 8. The Navigational Tabs in PCES

Step 3: Fill in project information and follow the directions.

The Project Info & Instructions tab starts with basic project information. It is followed
by a series of tabs that correspond with the key steps to using the scorecard. To begin,
the facilitator should fill in the basic project information (shown in Figure 9).

Project Information
Project Name: Project Type:

Owner/Client: Assessment Date (MM/DD/YYYY):

Project Manager: Facilitator Name:

Project Phase: Comments:

Figure 9. The Project Information Tab

22
 Chapter 3. Using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Step 4: Enter attendee information in the workshop attendance sheet.

The facilitator then moves to the Assessment Attendance tab to enter basic information
about the workshop participants, including their names, job titles, companies, and
contact information for post-assessment tracking and communication (see Figure 10).

Attendance Sheet

# Participant Name Job Title Company Email Contact Number Notes/Remarks

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Clear Attendance Sheet

Figure 10. The Assessment Attendance Tab

23
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Step 5: Start the assessment with Category A.

All 28 management processes are embedded within the tabs Category A and
Category B. The facilitator should start with the management processes in Category A
and complete the assessment by repeating the following actions for all management
processes:
1. Read the description of each management process (see Figure 11):

A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning Applicability Yes No Answer

1. Does this project fit into the owner’s Corporate Capital Plan? Click here

2. Concerning the development of the Corporate Capital Plan, has there been involvement of
Click here
the corporate strategy team, project organization, and operations group?
3. Does the project team understand the key assumptions and metrics of the Corporate
Click here
Capital Plan that impact the Project Capital Efficiency?

Figure 11. Hovering the Cursor over a Cell to Reveal Information

Hovering the cursor over the title cell (in this instance, “A.1.1. Corporate
Capital Planning”) cues Excel to call out and display a full description of
the management process (shown in Figure 12), which lists this process’
stakeholders and indicates which key improvement area(s) this topic affects.
Please note that the stakeholders are personnel within the organization who
are required to complete the management process outside the workshop.
They are not the workshop participants who complete the questions.

Description:
Corporate Capital Planning is a process of identifying the capital expenditures (CAPEX) and major
investment decisions at both portfolio and project levels by aligning them with corporate vision,
fiscal capacity, and market forecast. The plan can be either long-term or short-term. In the latter
case, the Corporate Capital Plan can be incorporated as a part of the corporate annual report.

Participants:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Business Development/Strategic Planning Manager,
Finance Manager, Marketing/Sales Manager, Human Resource Manager, Portfolio/Program
Manager, Project Manager

Key Improvement Area:

Investment & Schedule

Figure 12. Description and Other Information Listed within

the Pop-up Box for a Management Process

24
 Chapter 3. Using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

2. Determine whether each management process applies to the project (by

using the dropdown list, as demonstrated in Figure 13):
a. By default, all management processes are applicable.

A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning Applicability Yes No Answer

Applicability
1. Does this project fit into the owner’s Corporate Capital Plan? Not Applicable Click here

2. Concerning the development of the Corporate Capital Plan, has there been involvement of
Click here
the corporate strategy team, project organization, and operations group?
3. Does the project team understand the key assumptions and metrics of the Corporate
Click here
Capital Plan that impact the Project Capital Efficiency?

Figure 13. Selecting Applicability from a Dropdown List

b. Once a process has been identified as not applicable, its answer area
becomes blacked out, as Figure 14 illustrates. Blacked-out management
processes and their scores will not be included in the assessment.
Not
A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning Applicable
Yes No Answer

1. Does this project fit into the owner’s Corporate Capital Plan?

2. Concerning the development of the Corporate Capital Plan, has there been involvement of
the corporate strategy team, project organization, and operations group?
3. Does the project team understand the key assumptions and metrics of the Corporate
Capital Plan that impact the Project Capital Efficiency?

Figure 14. Blacked-out Answer Areas When “Not Applicable” Has Been Selected

3. By using the dropdown list shown in Figure 15, answer questions under each
process (i.e., answer Yes or No): To obtain a score later in the dashboard, a
user must answer every question. For each question under a process, the
facilitator should prompt discussion between the two groups.

A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning Applicability Yes No Answer

1. Does this project fit into the owner’s Corporate Capital Plan? Yes

2. Concerning the development of the Corporate Capital Plan, has there been involvement
No
of the corporate strategy team, project organization, and operations group?
3. Does the project team understand the key assumptions and metrics of the Corporate
Click here
Capital Plan that impact the Project Capital Efficiency?
Click here
Yes
No

Figure 15. Selecting Whether Processes Are Applicable

25
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

a. If the answer is “Yes,” evidence of its completion should be recorded.

The evidence of completion of action items for each question should be
recorded in the Comments/Remarks/Action Items section, shown outlined
in red in Figure 16:

Yes No Answer Comments/Remarks/Action Items

Yes

No

Figure 16. The Section for Recording Detailed Answers

b. If the answer is “No,” then its action items should be discussed and
developed to complete the management process after the workshop.

4. Complete all 125 questions in Categories A and B:

a. In Group 1, Category A: 32 questions under 6 management processes
b. In Group 2, Category A: 23 questions under 5 management processes
c. In Group 3, Category B: 41 questions under 10 management processes
d. In Group 4, Category B: 29 questions under 7 management processes

5. Use the dashboard (the rightmost tab) to review the results of the
assessment:
a. The top section of the dashboard displays the project information and
the overall score of the assessment (shown in Figure 17).

Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Project Name:
Project Owner/Client:
Project Type:
81 %
Project Phase: Project
Project Manager:
Assessment Facilitator:
Capital Efficiency
Assessment Date (MM/DD/YYYY): Score

Figure 17. The Dashboard with a Calculated Score

26
 Chapter 3. Using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

b. The lower section of the dashboard (shown in Figure 18) gives a score
for each process, group, and category. It is important to note that the
management processes in the scorecard can guide both business and
project units. Each unit can see what it needs to focus on, whether it is
pursuing project capital efficiency in the early phases, and how best to
align with others. Individual scores indicate what has or has not been
implemented, and to what degree.

Category
Category A Score
Corporate Capital Management 73%
Group 1 Group Score Group 2 Group Score
Corporate and Financial Strategy 62% Capital Governance and Processes 85%
A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning 63% A.2.1. Project Governance 83%
A.1.2. Strategic Scenario Analysis 74% A.2.2. Stakeholder Management 100%
A.1.3. Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization 100% A.2.3. Project Planning Process 100%
A.1.4. Country and Geographic Profile Assessment 100% A.2.4. Project Value Assurance Review 60%
A.1.5. Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis 18% A.2.5. Portfolio Resource Allocation 80%
A.1.6. Project Risk Assessment 25%

Figure 18. Scores for Each Category, Group, and Management Process

c. The two buttons appear at the bottom of the dashboard (see Figure 19).
Each can be used to export a type of report in PDF format. (Please
note: using either option will generate a PDF file in the same folder
where the scorecard is saved.)
– The Summary Report contains the information in the dashboard.
– The Detailed Report offers the dashboard information with comments
and action items for each management process.

Export PDF Summary Report Export PDF Detailed Report

Figure 19. Buttons at the Bottom of the Dashboard to Export PDFs

27
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

PCES Simplified Assessment – Pre-Alignment Meeting

If a workshop is not selected as the venue for this assessment, the recommended
alternative is to use the simplified assessment. Its pre-alignment meeting should include
key project stakeholders who know about the project under development. Attendees
are recommended individually to follow the steps in the previous section and complete
the questions under each management process by themselves. The pre-alignment
meeting will not provide an opportunity for a thorough discussion between the business
and project teams; however, by answering all of the questions in the PCES, meeting
attendees should be able to capture the project status. To complete the assessment,
the meeting should last from half an hour to an hour. Table 9 lists which participants
take part in the pre-alignment meeting.

Table 9. Suggested Participants for the Pre-alignment Meeting

Business Team Project Team

• Business Unit Manager • Capital Project Director/Manager

• Project/Executive Sponsor • Project Manager
• Portfolio/Program Manager

3.5. PCES Output and Further Actions

The main output of the PCES is the project capital efficiency score, which quantifies
the implementation effort for the management processes that lead to improvements in
project capital efficiency. The scores at the category and group levels are important to
the capital project as well as to the business and project teams, because these scores
show which action items both the business and project teams need to consider to address
the gaps identified during the workshop assessment. The scores (given in percentage
points) show the current implementation effort for each of the 28 processes. Indicate
gaps in implementation by answering “No” under the appropriate management process.

28
 Chapter 3. Using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

During the workshop assessment, the participants who discuss each question are
also asked to develop action items for each question with a “No” response:
• During the early phase of a project, and especially for the first assessment,
these action items work as a checklist for the business and project teams to
address any gaps as the project development progresses.
• When it comes to the next workshop assessment within the proposed PCES
assessment period, both teams should see improvement in the capital
efficiency score if they have done their action items.
• During the assessment at the end of the proposed period, each action item
addressed in time should lead to an efficient and effective project definition.

If a simplified assessment/pre-alignment meeting was selected for the assessment,

it should also record in the scorecard the comments and action items (probably in a
shorter form). This record not only captures the project development status but also
provides a comprehensive checklist for business and project teams to review and
follow up on. Many owner companies use meetings during a project’s early phase to
align business and engineering perspectives. The outcome from the PCES’s simplified
assessment can be used to help define topics for better meeting outcomes.

3.6. PCES Pilot Tests

RT-DCC-07 tested the PCES on two pilot projects to validate its functionality and
get an idea of how real projects should score in certain phases. To establish preliminary
expectations, the research team conducted three internal tests before it implemented
PCES on the pilot projects. These initial tests used hypothetical information that
indicated that certain tasks or processes should have been completed on a project at
the end of its Business Planning or Front End Planning’s Concept stage. Two internal
tests conducted at the end of the Business Planning phase achieved scores of 30%
and 34%, respectively. This means that at the end of the Business Planning phase, not
all management processes have been fully implemented, so the project should obtain
a score in this range. The score of the test conducted at the end of the Concept stage
was 100%, which means that all management processes included in PCES should
have been completed.

29
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Pilot Project 1: Mercury Removal Vessel Project

Mercury is present in natural gas fields. It can erode processing equipment with
brazed aluminum and potentially compromise the health and safety of plant staff and
operators. This pilot case was a mercury removal vessel project that was moving to
the end of the Concept stage. It was a sustainability project and the owner participant
considered the following statements to be true:
• This project is thoroughly studied and well defined.
• There is good alignment between the professionals involved in this project,
who come from different functions (including both the business and project
units).
• Based on the current estimation, this project has a good internal rate of return
(IRR). Yet return on investment is not the priority here, because this is a
sustainability project.

This project obtained an overall PCES score of 90%. Figure 20 presents its detailed
scores for each category and group.

30
 Chapter 3. Using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Project Name: Mercury Removal Vessel Project 90 %
Project
Project Owner/Client: Company M
Project Type: Sustainability

Capital Efficiency
Project Phase: Toward the End of the Concept Phase
Project Manager:
Assessment Facilitator:
Assessment Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 2021.10.20 Score

Category
Category A Score
Corporate Capital Management 92%
Group 1 Group Score Group 2 Group Score
Corporate and Financial Strategy 100% Capital Governance and Processes 84%
A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning 100% A.2.1. Project Governance 100%

A.1.2. Strategic Scenario Analysis 100% A.2.2. Stakeholder Management 100%

A.1.3. Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization 100% A.2.3. Project Planning Process 100%

A.1.4. Country and Geographic Profile Assessment A.2.4. Project Value Assurance Review 100%

A.1.5. Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis 100% A.2.5. Portfolio Resource Allocation 21%

A.1.6. Project Risk Assessment 100%

Category
Category B Score
Capital Project Deployment 89%
Group 3 Group Score Group 4 Group Score
Capital Project Expectations 91% Project Planning and Delivery 87%
B.3.1. Project Objectives Definition and Alignment 100% B.4.1. Project Scope Development 100%

B.3.2. Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) B.4.2. Site Condition, Infrastructure, and
100% 100%
Expectations Accessibility Assessment

B.3.3. Quality Expectations 100% B.4.3. Project Team Organization 100%

B.3.4. Project Target Setting 100% B.4.4. Project Standards and Specifications 100%

B.3.5. Project Execution Constraints and

100% B.4.5. Best Practices Implementation Plan 0%
Opportunities

B.3.6. Integrated Project Controls Expectations 100% B.4.6. Contracting Strategy and Management 100%

B.3.7. Operation and Maintenance Expectations 100% B.4.7. Change Management 100%

B.3.8. Benchmarking Expectations 100%

B.3.9. Best Practices Selection 100% Print Summary Report Print Detailed Report

B.3.10. Lessons Learned Plan 0% Print Gap Report (Not Completed Yet)

Figure 20. Pilot Project 1 PCES Score at the End of the Concept Phase

31
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Pilot Project 2: Petrochemical Project in the US Gulf Coast

This petrochemical project was located on the U.S. Gulf Coast. The project had
completed the Detailed Scope stage (which comes after the Concept stage). To obtain
the support of the company, the project underwent a redo process, for it had initially
failed to meet the company’s minimum requirement for a financial return. The project
used PCES for two assessments – one based on its initial development result (when it
failed to meet the requirement and was on the verge of being canceled) and a second
one based on subsequent information (when it had obtained the company’s approval
following a redo). Both assessments used project information at the end of the Detailed
Scope stage. Table 10 presents overall and broken down scores.

Table 10. Pilot Project 2 PCES Scores: Initial Plan vs. Redo Plan

Initial Plan Redo Plan

(Funding (Funding
Not Approved) Approved)
Project Stage Detailed Scope Detailed Scope

PCES Score 51% 84%

Category A: Corporate Capital Management 47% 93%

Group 1: Corporate and Financial Strategy 68% 93%

Group 2: Capital Governance and Processes 21% 92%

Category B: Capital Project Deployment 53% 78%

Group 3: Capital Project Expectations 38% 65%

Group 4: Project Planning and Delivery 75% 94%

As was stated above, this project went through a redo because it had been
projected to achieve a poor financial return. This gave rise to a non-sanctioned situation
that caused the project to be canceled. Its failed situation was caused by a lack of
collaboration and alignment between the business team and the project, which led to a
disconnect in the business case expectations of the two teams. The project team made
assumptions about business expectations based on a previous project’s expectations.
For the financial model, the business team input financial parameters that did not align
with those input by the project team. This misalignment created a project design that
was costly and failed to meet the business objectives. Both excessive cost and failure
to meet business objectives had direct impact on the commercial model and the IRR
for the project. These impacts led the project to fail to get its funding. Table 11 presents
the detailed scores for the 28 management processes of both the initial and redo plans.

32
 Chapter 3. Using the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Table 11. Pilot Project 2 PCES Management Process Scores:

Initial Plan vs. Redo Plan

Initial Redo
Management Process Plan Plan
PCES Scores
A.1.1 Corporate Capital Planning 31% 100%
A.1.2 Strategic Scenario Analysis 84% 100%
A.1.3 Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization 100% 100%
A.1.4 Country and Geographic Profile Assessment 100% 100%
A.1.5. Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis 38% 100%
A.1.6. Project Risk Assessment 62% 62%
A.2.1. Project Governance 0% 100%
A.2.2. Stakeholder Management 0% 100%
A.2.3. Project Planning Process 100% 100%
A.2.4. Project Value Assurance Review 0% 100%
A.2.5. Portfolio Resource Allocation 0% 60%
B.3.1. Project Objectives Definition and Alignment 0% 100%
B.3.2. Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Expectations 100% 100%
B.3.3. Quality Expectations 100% 100%
B.3.4. Project Target Setting 0% 100%
B.3.5. Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities 0% 0%
B.3.6. Integrated Project Controls Expectations 100% 100%
B.3.7. Operation and Maintenance Expectations 39% 100%
B.3.8. Benchmarking Expectations 39% 39%
B.3.9. Best Practices Selection 0% 0%
B.3.10. Lessons Learned Plan 0% 0%
B.4.1. Project Scope Development 100% 100%
B.4.2. Site Condition, Infrastructure, and Accessibility Assessment 100% 100%
B.4.3. Project Team Organization 59% 59%
B.4.4. Project Standards and Specifications 50% 100%
B.4.5. Best Practices Implementation Plan 0% 100%
B.4.6. Contracting Strategy and Management 100% 100%
B.4.7. Change Management 100% 100%

33
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Once the business and project teams grasped their points of misalignment and agreed
on what was acceptable to them both, they completed a redo of the project. What was
acceptable consisted of critical project elements including capacity, plant availability,
operability and maintainability, design margins, and flexibility. The redo plan obtained
sanction from the company, which then approved its funding. As Table 11 showed on
the preceding page, the redo plan assessment implemented 12 (out of 28) significantly
improved management processes. As Table 10 showed, the redo plan’s overall PCES
score was 84%, whereas the initial plan had scored only 51%. Such an improvement
paved the way for the project to gain funding approval.

While the redo project was a success, it should be noted that the assessment was
conducted at the end of the Detailed Engineering stage. This is further along than the
Concept phase, which is when the PCES was designed to have its final assessment.
While a PCES score of 84% gained funding approval in this case, opportunities for
improvement were still present.

Figure 17 shows good PCES scores, based on an initial analysis of the pilot projects
at the end of the Business Planning and Concept phases. Please note that these good
scores are based on a limited number of pilot projects and are subject to adjustment
once more projects have been assessed.

Good Score at the End of the Good Score at the End of the
Business Planning Phase Concept Phase

30% 90%

Figure 17. Ideal PCES Scores at the Ends of the

Business Planning and Concept Phases

34
 Chapter 4:
Conclusion and Future Research

For capital projects in the downstream and chemicals sector, the business and
project teams must be strategically aligned in the early phases. Such alignment ensures
competitive investment decisions, as well as effective project definition and execution
that align with the business objectives.

This research analyzed management processes that are implemented in the early
development phases of a capital project, including the Business Planning phase and Front
End Planning’s Feasibility and Concept stages. RT-DCC-07 started by defining project
capital efficiency and establishing its key improvement areas. It then characterized 28
management processes that improve capital efficiency and developed 125 questions to
assess implementation efforts. If there is to be strategic alignment between the business
and project teams, these processes are critical. By using two surveys, the research
team was able to obtain the relative importance of these management processes as
well as the assessment questions. The team then incorporated this relative importance
as weights in the Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard (PCES) it created.

The PCES is an assessment tool that is designed to be used in a workshop with

participants from both the business and project teams. The tool produces a project
score that indicates the implementation efforts of the 28 management processes. It
also captures the gaps between the business and project teams so action items can
be developed to promote alignment. In addition, the participation of contractors and
suppliers in the PCES full assessment is recommended, not only to acknowledge
their important contributions in the early phase of the project, but also to assure their
involvement that supports the alignment from the execution point of view.

It is worth emphasizing that the focus of the PCES is not the score it produces.
Its true value lies, rather, in the process of reaching strategic alignment between the
business and project units, which further leads to a capital-efficient project.

PCES in CII’s Value Chain

For the past 39 years, CII has been a leading research organization that has delivered
rigorous and overarching research to support companies in the capital project industry.
Many of CII’s research studies have helped capital projects improve performance
by enhancing their planning and execution efficiencies. Its past research covers the
capital project development life cycle, including Front End Planning, Engineering,
Procurement, Construction, and Startup phases that occur after a project is initiated
from a business opportunity.

35
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

The PCES expands CII’s research findings to cover an earlier phase – Business
Planning. It has a clear objective of achieving project capital efficiency by promoting
business-project collaboration even before project initiation. The PCES application
spans the Business Planning phase and the Concept stage of Front End Planning. It
helps convert business opportunities into successful capital projects by gathering input
from two sides – business development and project execution. The PCES also helps
its users achieve alignment between business and project teams. Such alignment
ensures a project is furthered by reflecting both the business strategy and corporate
vision that eventually lead to project capital efficiency. Figure 18 shows when the
PCES occurs, alongside some examples of other research outcomes (tools) developed
through previous CII research efforts.

Project Definition Planning

Rating Index (PDRI) for Startup

Business Front End Planning Design and

Startup
Planning Feasibility Concept
Detailed
Scope
Construction
Project Initiation

Project Capital Efficiency Construction Readiness

Scorecard (PCES) Assessment (CRA)

Figure 18. PCES in CII’s Value Chain among Example Research Outcomes

The PCES aims to improve project capital efficiency by fostering business-project

collaboration:
1. Its first category focuses on the corporate level to ensure the project or
business opportunity has undergone proper scrutiny, is aligned with the
corporate objective, and is being governed properly by having input from
both business and project teams.
2. Its second category focuses on the capital project itself – how it should
be defined and delivered. Here the business unit is involved so it can offer
input.
This second category is strongly connected to another CII tool, the Project
Definition Rating Index (PDRI); however, the PCES is not meant to repeat
what PDRI has already done in an earlier project phase. Rather, the PCES
initiates an early conversation at a higher level to ensure the project receives
input that takes into account both the business and project perspectives. This
approach helps further define a project during its later stage with a better
reflection of business objectives set at the corporate level.

36
 Chapter 4. Conclusion and Future Research

Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard (PCES)

Group 1: Corporate and Financial Strategy

Category A: Corporate Capital Management

A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning

A.1.2. Strategic Scenario Analysis

A.1.3. Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization

A.1.4. Country and Geographic Profile Assessment

A.1.5. Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis

A.1.6. Project Risk Assessment

Group 2: Capital Governance and Processes

A.2.1. Project Governance

A.2.2. Stakeholder Management

A.2.3. Project Planning Process

A.2.4. Project Value Assurance Review

PDRI for Industrial Projects

A.2.5. Portfolio Resource Allocation Section I – Basis of Project Decision

Group 3: Capital Project Expectations A. Manufacturing Objective Criteria

B. Business Objective
B.3.1. Project Objectives Definition and Alignment
C. Basic Data Research &
B.3.2. Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Development
Expectations
D. Project Scope
B.3.3. Quality Expectations E. Value Engineering
B.3.4. Project Target Setting
Category B: Capital Project Deployment

Section II – Basis of Design

B.3.5. Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities
F. Site Information
B.3.6. Integrated Project Controls Expectations
G. Process/Mechanical
B.3.7. Operation and Maintenance Expectations
H. Equipment Scope
B.3.8. Benchmarking Expectations
I. Civil, Structural, & Architectural
B.3.9. Best Practices Selection
J. Infrastructure
B.3.10. Lessons Learned Plan K. Instrument & Electrical

Group 4: Project Planning and Delivery Section III – Execution Approach

L. Procurement Strategy
B.4.1. Project Scope Development
M. Deliverables
B.4.2. Site Condition, Infrastructure, and Accessibility
Assessment N. Project Control

B.4.3. Project Team Organization P. Project Execution Plan

B.4.4. Project Standards and Specifications

B.4.5. Best Practices Implementation Plan

B.4.6. Contracting Strategy and Management

B.4.7. Change Management

Figure 19. Links between PCES and PDRI

37
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

It is important to point out a distinction between PCES and PDRI on the same topic.
As opposed to PDRI, the PCES focuses at a higher level, mostly to set expectations
on key project aspects with input from business and project teams, which could
guide the project’s development through the next stages of the project. The PCES is
recommended to be used before the PDRI and, if possible, the PDRI should include
PCES as a prerequisite assessment.

Limitation
One limitation of the PCES is that its weighting factors were obtained solely in the
context of downstream and chemicals industrial capital projects. For use on projects
in other sectors, the weights of the management processes in this scorecard may
require adjustment.

Future Research
To continue with the current effort, the members of RT-DCC-07 suggest that future
research be taken along two possible pathways:

• Correlation of PCES Scores and Capital Efficiency Metrics – Since the

scorecard assesses capital efficiency-improving management processes,
its output – the PCES project score – should be correlated to certain capital
efficiency metrics. The assumption is that the higher the score produced by
the PCES, the higher the likelihood of achieving a better return. This future
study could validate which capital efficiency metrics are correlated with the
PCES score and how strong the correlations are.
• Capital Efficiency Score Benchmarking – Another proposal for future
research would be to use the PCES score for benchmarking purposes.
If sufficient projects could be identified as amenable to the scorecard –
especially with PCES scores from different project phases – industry
benchmarks could be established and referenced. Such benchmarks could
provide valuable information on how a project is performing against a set of
peer projects. This research could determine what a reasonable PCES score
is for a given phase of the project.

38
 References

Badiru, A. B., and Osisanya, S. O. (2013). Project Management for the Oil and Gas
Industry: A World System Approach (1st ed.). Baton Rouge, LA: CRC Press. <https://
doi.org/10.1201/b13755>
Beck, S. (2018). “Haynesville Thriving on Capital Efficiency.” Oil & Gas Investor, 38(12), 1.
Biddle, G. C., Hilary, G., and Verdi, R. S. (2009). “How does financial reporting quality
relate to investment efficiency?” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48(2-3),
112–131. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2009.09.001>
Bonett, D. G., and Wright, T. A. (2015). “Cronbach’s alpha reliability.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 3–15.
Caletka, A. (2016). “Driving capital efficiency to fuel oil and gas projects.” Petroleum
Accounting and Financial Management Journal, 35(3), 86–95.
Collins, W., Parrish, K., and Gibson, G. E., Jr. (2017). “Development of a Project Scope
Definition and Assessment Tool for Small Industrial Construction Projects.” Journal
of Management in Engineering, 33(4), 04017015. <https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)
me.1943-5479.0000514>
CSI Market (2021). Chemical Manufacturing Industry Management Effectiveness
Information and Trends by quarter. [website] Coral Springs, FL: CSIMarket,
Inc. <https://csimarket.com/Industry/industry _ManagementEffectiveness.
php???&ind=101>
Cutillas Gomariz, M. F., and Sánchez Ballesta, J. P. (2014). “Financial reporting quality,
debt maturity and investment efficiency.” Journal of Banking and Finance, 40(1),
494–506. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.07.013>
Delacre, M., Lakens, D., and Leys, C. (2017). “Why Psychologists Should by Default Use
Welch’s t-test Instead of Student’s t-test.” International Review of Social Psychology,
30(1), 92–101. <https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.82>
EnerCom (2018). Drilling Down into Oil & Gas Valuation. Denver, CO: EnerCom, Inc.
Fane, M. (2020). “How to unlock value in oil and gas capital projects in any environment.”
EY Americas Energy & Resources. London, UK: Ernst & Young Global Limited.
Retrieved May 4, 2021 <https://www.ey.com/en_gl/oil-gas-digital-skills-survey/
how-to-unlock-value-in-oil-and-gas-capital-projects-in-any-environment>
Fang, T., and Lahdelma, R. (2016). “Optimization of combined heat and power production
with heat storage based on sliding time window method.” Applied Energy, 162,
723–732. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.135>
Gao, R., and Yu, X. (2020). “How to measure capital investment efficiency: a literature
synthesis.” Accounting and Finance, 60(1), 299–334. <https://doi.org/10.1111/
acfi.12343>

39
 Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

George, D., and Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide
and Reference (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Goedhart, M., Levy, C., and Morgan, P. (2015). A better way to understand internal rate
of return. [website] New York, NY: McKinsey & Company: Strategy & Corporate
Finance. <https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-
finance/our-insights/a-better-way-to-understand-internal-rate-of-return>
Goldman Sachs (2019). Environmental Market Opportunities – Clean Energy. [website]
New York, NY: Goldman Sachs.
tal
& Guru, D. (2021). Management Process: Definition, Features & Functions. [website]
ng Mumbai, India: upGrad Education Private Limited. < https://www.upgrad.com/blog/
al- management-process-explained/>
al- Hamilton, A., Koelman, J., and Vermeltfoort, K. (2019). How the oil and gas industry
can improve capital-project performance. [website] New York, NY: McKinsey &
Company: Oil & Gas. <https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-
insights/how-the-oil-and-gas-industry-can-improve-capital-project-performance>
Hayes, A. (2021, February 18). Return on Capital Employed (ROCE). [website] New
York, NY: Investopedia. <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/roce.asp>
Johnson, D., and Chang, R. (2018). Crude oil-to-chemicals projects presage a new
era in global petrochemical industry. [website] London, UK: IHS Markit: Chemical
& Energy Insights. <https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/crudeoil-chemicals-
projects.html>
Kim, S. T., and Choi, B. (2019). “Price risk management and capital structure of oil and
gas project companies: Difference between upstream and downstream industries.”
Energy Economics, 83, 361–374. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.07.008>
Kissi, J., Dainty, A., and Tuuli, M. (2013). “Examining the role of transformational leadership
of portfolio managers in project performance.” International Journal of Project
Management, 31(4), 485–497. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.004>
Kumar, A. (2018). Business Process Management (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Langerak, F., Griffin, A., and Hultink, E. J. (2010). “Balancing Development Costs
and Sales to Optimize the Development Time of Product Line Additions.” Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 27(3), 336–348. <https://doi.org/10.1111
/j.1540-5885.2010.00720.x>
Magdirila, P. (2016). “Many E&Ps to improve capital efficiency as oil, gas prices rebound,
Moody’s says.” Daily Gas Report. July 6, 2016. Charlottesville, VA: SNL Energy.
McDonald, M. (2019). Valuation in the Oil & Gas Industry: Everything You Need To
Know To Put A Realistic Value On Your Investment. Oilprice.com Investor Education
Series, Report #6. London, UK: Oilprice.com.

40
 References

Prieto, B. (2014). Capital Efficiency: Pull all the Levers (1st ed.). McLean, VA: Construction
Management Association of America.
Ramsey, J. B. (1970). “The Marginal Efficiency of Capital, the Internal Rate of Return,
and Net Present Value: An Analysis of Investment Criteria.” Journal of Political
Economy, 78(5): 1017-1027. <https://doi.org/10.1086/259687>
Satapathy, M. (2019). Beating Volatility through Veracity and Velocity in Portfolio
Management. Dublin, Ireland: Accenture plc. <https://www.accenture.com/_
acnmedia/pdf-106/accenture-beating-volatility.pdf>
Scott-Young, C., and Samson, D. (2008). “Project success and project team management:
Evidence from capital projects in the process industries.” Journal of Operations
Management, 26(6), 749–766. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.10.006>
Shah, R. (2012). “Thinking about tomorrow: capital efficiency in the GCC.” A Middle
East Point of View, Fall 2012. London, UK: Deloitte & Touche.
Sheehan, C. (2017). “On The Money: Raising or Reining in Outspends?” Oil & Gas
Investor, 37(4).
Shell (2014). “New Shell CEO Ben van Beurden sets agenda for sharper performance
and rigorous capital discipline.” [Media release, 30 January 2014.] London,
UK: Royal Dutch Shell plc. <https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-
releases/2014/2014-results-announcement-media-release1.html>
Shell (2021). “Performance indicators.” Shell Annual Report 2020. London, UK: Royal
Dutch Shell plc. <https://reports.shell.com/annual-report/2020/strategic-report/
performance-indicators.php>
Talerico, A. (2020). Why Capital Efficiency Matters. [website] Minneapolis, MN: Arthur
Ventures Management LLC. Retrieved August 19, 2021. <https://www.arthurventures.
com/blog/why-capital-efficiency-matters>
Vătavu, S., Lobonț, O.-R., Para, I., and Pelin, A. (2018). “Addressing oil price changes
through business profitability in oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom.” PLoS
ONE, 13(6). <https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199100>
Yun, S. (2013). “The impact of the business-project interface on capital project
performance.” Dissertation. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.

41
 Appendix A:
Background Study

Literature Review
Capital efficiency is a widely studied topic. A common challenge, though, is coming
up with a consistent way of defining and measuring it (Gao and Yu, 2020).

Capital Efficiency: Definitions

Researchers and practitioners have defined and measured capital efficiency in
numerous ways and have applied their various definitions and measures at different
levels, but primarily they have worked at the company, portfolio, and project levels:
• Capital efficiency concerns whether an organization is using its cash in an
efficient way, to operate and grow (Talerico, 2020).
• In the energy industry, capital efficiency considers the return companies are
getting on their expenditures (EnerCom, 2018).
• For an oil and gas company, capital efficiency tells the investors how profitably
the company is using its assets (McDonald, 2019).
• Biddle and colleagues defined a company as a capital-efficient organization
if it undertakes projects with positive net present value (NPV) (Biddle et al.,
2009).
• Shell considers capital efficiency to be related to hard choices on new capital
projects, reduced growth investment, and more sales from the assets (Shell
2014).
• Similarly, Caletka defines capital efficiency as a measure of a company’s
ability to select, deploy, and manage capital investments that maximize
shareholder value (Caletka, 2016).
• At the project level, Johnson and Chang define an oil refining project as being
more capital-efficient if less capital is invested to achieve the same production
capacity (Johnson and Chang, 2018).
• By using capital efficiency and capital intensity interchangeably, Prieto
considered that capital efficiency concerns getting the maximum return on
invested capital (Prieto, 2014).

43
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Capital Efficiency: Measures

Capital efficiency is measured in numerous ways:
• For oil and gas companies, Beck and Sheehan suggested assessing capital
efficiency by using billion cubic feet equivalent per day (BCFE/day) and barrel
of oil equivalent per day (BOE/day); however, these two measures apply to the
upstream sector (Beck, 2018; Sheehan, 2017).
• Certain measures are designed to be applied at a company-level assessment
(Cutillas Gomariz and Sánchez Ballesta, 2014:
– Some popular ones include return on equity (ROE), return on assets (ROA),
and return on invested capital (ROIC).
– All of these measures fall under a broader umbrella of assessing capital
efficiency – return on capital employed (ROCE) (Hayes, 2021).
– These measures may not be defined in consistent ways. For instance, Shell
uses a variant of ROCE, the return on average capital employed (ROACE),
which is a measure of the efficiency of capital utilization that is common for
business performance assessment (Shell 2021).
• Both Biddle et al. and Ramsey measured capital efficiency using NPV (Biddle
et al., 2009; Ramsey, 1970).
• Ramsey also measured capital efficiency by using the internal rate of return
(IRR), and Goedhart et al. considered IRR to be the single most important
metric to benchmark the performance of the capital investment (Ramsey, 1970;
Goedhart et al., 2015).
• McDonald suggested that the ratio of NPV and CAPEX (capital expenditure)
should be used to measure capital efficiency (McDonald, 2019).
• Another capital efficiency measure is return on investment (ROI):
– Caletka stated that ROI is a ratio between revenue and the capital invested
(Caletka, 2016).
– Prieto (2014) emphasized that the return should be the net operating profit
after taxes (NOPAT).

RT-DCC-07's review of the literature yielded a sense that, among the established
definitions and measures, capital efficiency continues to be defined and measured in
various ways. Because the downstream and chemicals sector involves intensive assets
and cash flow, it is important to address these gaps by first learning how organizations
define and measure capital efficiency.

Interviews
To shed light on how professionals use capital efficiency, RT-DCC-07 conducted
11 interviews with employees of eight CII member companies in the downstream and
chemicals sector. The team intended for this preliminary study to offer an industry
perspective that complemented what it had learned from its literature review.

44
 Appendix A: Background Study

To gather data on how companies define, measure, and use capital efficiency, the
team asked interviewees four core questions:
1. What measures and metrics does your company use to assess capital
efficiency?
2. Who participates in the assessment?
3. How does your company use the assessment result?
4. Does your company have a standard definition of capital efficiency?

Each interview began by discussing measures and metrics to improve how it

captured the interviewee’s personal interpretations of capital efficiency, in case that
person’s organization had no existing definition. Each interview lasted from 20 to 30
minutes. Table 4 lists the CII member companies that participated in the preliminary
interviews, and Table 5 describes the participants’ roles and level of experience.

Table 4. CII Member Companies that Participated in the Preliminary Interviews

Owners Contractors
• Chevron Phillips Chemicals • Burns & McDonnell
• ExxonMobil • Fluor
• Flint Hills Resources
• Motiva Enterprises
• SABIC
• Shell

Table 5. Information for the Interviewees in the Preliminary Interviews

Company Position Years of Experience

Owner 1 Senior Manager of Value Assurance Review 15
Owner 2 Competitive Intelligence Advisor 25
Owner 3 Project Manager 38
Owner 4 Benchmarking Team Lead 30
Manager of Project Excellence 18
Owner 5
Director of Project Excellence and Assurance 32
Production Manager 38
Owner 6 Director of Economics and Planning 29
Project Director 25
Contractor 1 Vice President and Manager of Projects 33
Contractor 2 Director of Estimating 40

45
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Table 6 presents details from the interview findings. Where a company had more
than one interviewee, their responses have been combined.

Table 6. Summary of Key Preliminary Interview Questions

Assessment Assessment Standard

Company Measures/Metrics
Participants Purpose Definition
• IRR (as primary) • Business • Decision making
Owner • NPV development • Project gate review
• Value assurance No
1 • Marginal analysis • Scope development
• Payback analysis • Project manager
• NPV • Business • Decision making
• Payback analysis development • Design improvement
Owner
• Third-party • Benchmarking • Process optimization Yes
2 team
assessment • Close-out
• Project manager assessment
• IRR • Business analyst • Funding approval
• ROI • Project sponsor • Decision making
Owner
• Project manager • Technology selection No
3
• Technical provider* • Look back
assessment
• Cost benchmarking • Opportunity team • Project authorization
of processing units • Value assurance • Decision making
Owner • Phase benchmarking • Risk assessment • Technology selection Yes
4 • ROI • Project manager • Close-out
• Contractor* assessment

• IRR • Project sponsor • Portfolio assessment

Owner • Third-party • Project manager • Project phase review
assessment No
5 • Design engineer • Execution
• Contractor* improvement
• Cost benchmarking • Business • Funding approval
of major processing development • Project gate review
• IRR • Economic planning • Scope development
• Marginal analysis • Project manager • Technology selection
Owner
• NPV • Estimation team No
6
• Payback analysis • Process engineers
• Third-party • Technology
assessment provider*
• EPC contractor*

Contractor
No
1
Capital efficiency is not measured within the company
Contractor
No
2

*Only provided information upon the owner’s request.

46
 Appendix B: Management Processes and Capital Efficiency Key Improvement Areas

Key Improvement Areas

Management Processes
Investment Returns Schedule Operation
Group 1: Corporate and Financial Strategy
Category A: Corporate Capital Management

A.1.1 Corporate Capital Planning • •

A.1.2 Strategic Scenario Analysis • • • •

A.1.3 Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization • •

A.1.4 Country and Geographic Profile Assessment • • • •

A.1.5 Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis • •

A.1.6 Project Risk Assessment • • • •

Group 2: Capital Governance and Processes

A.2.1 Project Governance •

A.2.2 Stakeholder Management •

A.2.3 Project Planning Process • •

A.2.4 Project Value Assurance Review • •

A.2.5 Portfolio Resource Allocation • •

47
 Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard
48

Key Improvement Areas

Management Processes
Investment Returns Schedule Operation
Group 3: Capital Project Expectations
B.3.1 Project Objectives Definition and Alignment • • • •

B.3.2 Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Expectations • •

B.3.3 Quality Expectations • •

B.3.4 Project Target Setting • •

Category B: Capital Project Deployment

B.3.5 Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities • •

B.3.6 Integrated Project Controls Expectations • •

B.3.7 Operation and Maintenance Expectations • • •

B.3.8 Benchmarking Expectations • • • •

B.3.9 Best Practices Selection • • • •

B.3.10 Lessons Learned Plan • •

Group 4: Project Planning and Delivery

B.4.1 Project Scope Development • •

B.4.2 Site Condition, Infrastructure, and Accessibility Assessment • •

B.4.3 Project Team Organization •

B.4.4 Project Standards and Specifications •

B.4.5 Best Practices Implementation Plan •

B.4.6 Contracting Strategy and Management •

B.4.7 Change Management •

 Appendix C:
Survey #1 – Relative Importance of Management Processes

This appendix details how RT-DCC-07 determined the relative importance of

management processes via Survey #1 and presents findings from its analysis of the data.

C.1. Data Collection and Analysis

C.1.1. Survey Design

Survey #1 asked respondents’ professional perception of the importance of each
process related to project capital efficiency. It used the following 10-point Likert scale:
• 1 and 2 – Slightly important • 7 and 8 – Very important
• 3 and 4 – Moderately important • 9 and 10 – Extremely important
• 5 and 6 – Important
Respondents considered all of the management processes identified by the focus
group to be important and positively influential to project capital efficiency.

C.1.2. Survey Dissemination

The respondents were professionals from the business and project sides of a capital
project. Yun categorized management professionals and roles in both business and
project units in an owner’s organization. Business positions include senior management
positions (e.g., business unit manager, project sponsor, or executive sponsor) and
functional management personnel (e.g., finance manager, marketing manager, HR,
facility/plant manager, operation manager, portfolio/program manager) (Yun, 2013).

In this study, other than the owner’s project team, project professionals included
experts from EPC contractors and service providers whose organizations were heavily
involved in the early development of capital projects in the downstream and chemicals
sector (Badiru and Osisanya, 2013). RT-DCC-07 disseminated the survey through the
Downstream and Chemicals Sector Committee to CII’s member companies. During a
four-week period, the team collected 81 surveys. It considered 63 responses complete
and valid for further analysis. Table 8 summarizes the valid survey responses.

Table 8. Summary of Survey Responses

Company No. of No. of Average Experience
Teams
Type Companies Responses (Years)
Business Team Owner 8 18 22.1
Owner 18 32 26.9
Project Team EPC Contractor 6 6 23.8
Service Provider 6 7 30.7

49
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

C.1.3. Survey Data Analysis

Among 63 complete and valid responses, five management processes received a
total of six “Not Important” scores. The team’s rule had been to remove any management
process that received “Not Important” for more than a third of its responses. Since
this rule was not triggered, no management processes were removed.

The team analyzed the survey data in the following steps by using SPSS 26.0
for Windows:
1. The researchers used Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) to measure the
internal consistency of the Likert scale of the survey data (Bonett and
Wright, 2015). The Cronbach’s alpha typically ranges from 0 to 1 and a
value greater than 0.9 indicates excellent consistency (George and Mallery,
2003). The calculated α was 0.950, indicating that the 28 management
processes are at an excellent level of internal consistency.
2. The team calculated the mean values of the 28 management processes,
then ranked them and compared the results between the business and
project groups. These rankings indicated the relative importance of the
management processes as perceived by the industrial professionals. When
any management processes’ mean values coincided, the researchers used
the standard deviation (S.D.) as a tie-breaker, with a smaller S.D. being
ranked higher.
3. To determine whether each management process was significantly
important, the team performed a one-sample t-test of the mean values at a
significance level of 0.05, and against a test value of 7.0 (the lower end of
the “Very Important” range).
4. The researchers computed and ranked the mean values of each
management process from the business and project groups. Also, they
tested the mean values from the two groups to see if they were significantly
different. Because of the unequal sample sizes from the two groups, a
Welch’s t-test was performed (Delacre et al., 2017).
5. Finally, the team calculated and ranked the absolute difference in the
mean values between the two groups. This step is meant to indicate that
the larger the difference, the further apart were their views on the relative
importance of the 28 management processes.

C.2. Relative Importance of the Management Processes

Table 9 presents the survey respondents’ perceptions on the relative importance
of the 28 management processes. The right side of the table highlights the top five
processes for each group in purple.

50
 Table 9. The Relative Importance of Management Processes with Their Total Responses and Group Rankings

Total Sample Business Team Project Team

Management Process (N = 63) (N = 18) (N = 45)
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
Group 1: Corporate and Financial Strategy
Category A: Corporate Capital Management

A.1.1 Corporate Capital Planning 8.59 4 8.11 9 8.78 4

A.1.2 Strategic Scenario Analysis 8.27 12 8.39 6 8.22 20

A.1.3 Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization 8.38 8 8.44 5 8.36 14

A.1.4 Country and Geographic Profile Assessment 7.30 24 7.17 21 7.36 26

A.1.5 Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis 8.75 3 8.11 10 9.00 2

Appendix C: Survey #1 – Relative Importance of Management Processes

A.1.6 Project Risk Assessment 8.56 5 8.56 4 8.56 6

Group 2: Capital Governance and Processes

A.2.1 Project Governance 8.46 7 8.67 3 8.38 13

A.2.2 Stakeholder Management 8.16 14 7.83 14 8.29 17

A.2.3 Project Planning Process 8.38 9 8.11 11 8.49 7

A.2.4 Project Value Assurance Review 7.29 26 6.44 27 7.62 23

A.2.5 Portfolio Resource Allocation 8.08 16 7.56 18 8.29 16

51
 Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard
52

Total Sample Business Team Project Team

Management Process (N = 63) (N = 18) (N = 45)
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
Group 3: Capital Project Expectations
B.3.1 Project Objectives Definition and Alignment 8.86 2 8.78 1 8.89 3

B.3.2 Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Expectations 8.02 19 7.17 23 8.36 15

B.3.3 Quality Expectations 8.06 18 7.72 15 8.20 21

B.3.4 Project Target Setting 7.98 20 6.94 26 8.40 9

Category B: Capital Project Deployment

B.3.5 Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities 8.24 13 7.67 16 8.47 8

B.3.6 Integrated Project Controls Expectations 7.97 21 6.94 25 8.38 12

B.3.7 Operation and Maintenance Expectations 7.86 22 7.17 22 8.13 22

B.3.8 Benchmarking Expectations 6.79 28 5.78 28 7.20 28

B.3.9 Best Practices Selection 7.57 23 7.56 19 7.58 24

B.3.10 Lessons Learned Plan 7.29 25 7.28 20 7.29 27

Group 4: Project Planning and Delivery

B.4.1 Project Scope Development 9.00 1 8.78 2 9.09 1

B.4.2 Site Condition, Infrastructure, and Accessibility Assessment 8.35 10 8.28 7 8.38 11

B.4.3 Project Team Organization 8.08 17 7.61 17 8.27 19

B.4.4 Project Standards and Specifications 8.16 15 7.89 13 8.27 18

B.4.5 Best Practices Implementation Plan 7.24 27 6.94 24 7.36 25

B.4.6 Contracting Strategy and Management 8.32 11 8.11 8 8.40 10

B.4.7 Change Management 8.48 6 7.94 12 8.69 5

 Appendix C: Survey #1 – Relative Importance of Management Processes

Table 10 (on the following page) presents detailed information concerning the
ranking and comparison of the mean values of each management process within all
survey responses and the two groups. The team made the following main findings
from its analysis of the survey data:
• In the total responses group, 27 out of 28 management processes possessed
mean values greater than 7. Twenty-three of the 28 were significantly different
from the testing value at the confident level of 0.05, which means they were
very important to project capital efficiency.
• The researchers calculated the absolute difference between the business and
project groups in the mean, ranked the scores from largest to smallest, and
tested the results. (The absolute difference indicates the gap in perceptions
between the business and project teams regarding a certain management
process. The higher the ranking, the further apart their views.) The result
of a Welch’s t-test suggests that the business and project teams differed
significantly on four management processes, as indicated by the mean values.
Their misalignment concerned four processes:
– Project Target Setting (B.3.4) – (ranked 1)
– Integrated Project Controls Expectations (B.3.6) – (ranked 2)
– Project Value Assurance Review (A.2.4) – (ranked 5)
– Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis (A.1.5) – (ranked 7)

53
 Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard
54

Table 10. Ranking and Comparison of Means of Management Processes within Total Responses and Groups

Total Sample Business Team Project Team Differences between

Management (N=63) (N=18) (N=45) Business and Project
Process Signifi- Welch’s Absolute Difference
Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank
cance t-test Difference Rank
B.4.1 9.00 1.18 1 0.000 8.78 1.31 2 9.09 1.12 1 0.383 0.31 18
B.3.1 8.86 1.27 2 0.000 8.78 1.22 1 8.89 1.30 3 0.750 0.11 23
A.1.5 8.75 1.36 3 0.000 8.11 1.60 10 9.00 1.17 2 0.043 b 0.89 7
A.1.1 8.59 1.66 4 0.000 8.11 1.60 9 8.78 1.66 4 0.150 0.67 11
A.1.6 8.56 1.50 5 0.000 8.56 1.79 4 8.56 1.39 6 1.000 0.00 28
B.4.7 8.48 1.55 6 0.000 7.94 1.80 12 8.69 1.41 5 0.128 0.74 9
A.2.1 8.46 1.46 7 0.000 8.67 1.50 3 8.38 1.45 13 0.490 0.29 20
A.1.3 8.38 1.53 8 0.000 8.44 1.15 5 8.36 1.67 14 0.810 0.09 25
A.2.3 8.38 1.66 9 0.000 8.11 2.14 11 8.49 1.44 7 0.497 0.38 16
B.4.2 8.35 1.35 10 0.000 8.28 1.23 7 8.38 1.40 11 0.781 0.10 24
B.4.6 8.32 1.37 11 0.000 8.11 1.18 8 8.40 1.44 10 0.416 0.29 19
A.1.2 8.27 1.77 12 0.000 8.39 2.28 6 8.22 1.55 20 0.778 0.17 22
B.3.5 8.24 1.54 13 0.000 7.67 1.64 16 8.47 1.46 8 0.082 0.80 8
A.2.2 8.16 1.53 14 0.000 7.83 1.72 14 8.29 1.44 17 0.330 0.46 14
B.4.4 8.16 1.69 15 0.000 7.89 2.11 13 8.27 1.50 18 0.495 0.38 17
A.2.5 8.08 1.51 16 0.000 7.56 1.72 18 8.29 1.38 16 0.119 0.73 10
B.4.3 8.08 1.77 17 0.000 7.61 2.25 17 8.27 1.53 19 0.268 0.66 12
B.3.3 8.06 1.63 18 0.000 7.72 1.99 15 8.20 1.46 21 0.365 0.48 13
B.3.2 8.02 2.30 19 0.001 7.17 3.17 23 8.36 1.79 15 0.148 1.19 4
B.3.4 7.98 1.81 20 0.000 6.94 2.31 26 8.40 1.39 9 0.021b 1.46 1
B.3.6 7.97 1.82 21 0.000 6.94 2.29 25 8.38 1.43 12 0.021b 1.43 2
B.3.7 7.86 1.93 22 0.001 7.17 2.41 22 8.13 1.66 22 0.132 0.97 6
B.3.9 7.57 1.78 23 0.014 7.56 1.76 19 7.58 1.82 24 0.964 0.02 26
A.1.4 7.30 2.12 24 0.264a 7.17 2.12 21 7.36 2.14 26 0.752 0.19 21
B.3.10 7.29 1.81 25 0.215 a 7.28 2.08 20 7.29 1.71 27 0.984 0.01 27
A.2.4 7.29 1.84 26 0.221a 6.44 2.15 27 7.62 1.60 23 0.046 b 1.18 5
B.4.5 7.24 1.56 27 0.231a 6.94 1.39 24 7.36 1.63 25 0.320 0.41 15
B.3.8 6.79 2.09 28 0.436 a 5.78 3.00 28 7.20 1.44 28 0.069 1.42 3
a
Result obtained from the one-sample t-test is insignificant at the level of 0.05 (two-tailed).
b
Result indicates the mean values of the two groups are significantly different at the level of 0.05 (two-tailed).
 Appendix D:
Survey #2 – Relative Importance of
Management Process Questions

This appendix presents the details of Survey #2, which was disseminated within
the research team, and shares how the team used survey results to gauge the relative
importance of each question under the management processes.

D.1. Survey Design and Dissemination

To determine the relative importance of 125 management process questions,
RT-DCC-07 asked each respondent of Survey #2 to assign a value (a weight between
1 and 5) to each question, where 1 was Slightly Important and 5 was Extremely
Important. Under the same management process, two questions could be assigned
the same value if a respondent considered them to be equally important.

The survey was disseminated to the research team’s non-academic members.

Among 18 qualified members asked to participate, 14 submitted responses within three
weeks. Of these, 11 responses were considered complete and valid, and their results
were used in the later calculation.

D.2. Survey Results

After obtaining the initial weighting values of each question from the surveys
disseminated within the research team, the researchers used the following equation
to calculate the relative importance of each question as a percentage:

∑ i=1 W
n
i

Relative Importance of a Question = × 100%

∑ j=1 ∑ i=1 W
m n
i

Where:

Wi is the weighting value selected by a survey respondent (from 1 to 5)

n is the total number of survey participants who responded to a question
m is the total number of questions under a management process

The sum of the relative importance of all questions under a management process was
100%. Appendix F presents additional details about the questions’ relative importance.

55
 Appendix E:
Developing the PCES

The research team aimed to develop a user-friendly tool to calculate a capital

efficiency score for a capital project in its early phases. A user should be able to apply
the scorecard to assess how well business and project teams are implementing the
management processes. To enable the calculation process, the team had to incorporate
the management processes and their questions into a framework. The scorecard
calculation process is illustrated in the following steps:

Step 1: Management Process Score

The scorecard user is first expected to determine whether a management process
applies to the project being assessed. By default, all management processes apply. The
user then has to respond to all questions under the 28 (or all applicable) management
processes by selecting “Yes” or “No.” Only questions with “Yes” are counted, using
their relative importance (obtained in Survey #2) as a percentage. The sum of counted
questions produces a score at the management process level. Figure 7 gives an
example of the scoring at this level.

Question’s Response Management

Management
Relative to Process
Process A.y.z
Importance Question A.y.z Score

Question #1 28% Yes

Question #2 22% No
Question #3 16% Yes 58%
Question #4 14% Yes
Question #5 20% No
Total 100%

Figure 20. Scoring Procedure at the Management Process Level

57
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Step 2: Group-level Score

The group-level score includes two elements:
1. The relative importance of the management process (obtained in Survey #1)
2. The score (as a percentage) for each management process under the same
group.

As the main findings in Survey #1, mean values of each management process
had been calculated for both the business team and project team. Due to the leading
effort in a management process, the mean values for both teams had to be adjusted
by weight factors. The research team discussed these factors and determined that
for management processes in Groups 1 and 2 (Category A), Weight Factor B (for the
business team) should be 60% and Weight Factor P (for the project) should be 40%;
in Category B, Factors B and P were switched for Groups 3 and 4. Figure 21 shows
how the team adjusted the weight of a management process by using the appropriate
weight factors for the business and project mean values.

Management Process Management

Relative Importance (Mean) Process A.y.z
Adjusted Weight
Business (N=18) Project (N=45)

Management 8.XX 6.XX

Process A.y.z

× Weight Factor P 7.XX

× Weight Factor B +

Figure 21. Procedure to Adjust Weight of a Management Process

The research team then conducted additional work to refine these factors. The
team looked to Yun, who used a survey to capture the percentage of business and
project professionals who participated in numerous work functions during the Business
Planning and Front End Planning phases (Yun 2013). The research team selected the
work functions that matched management processes in Categories A and B; then the
team recalculated the percentage of both business and project personnel for both
categories. Based on these calculations, the team adjusted Factor B to 62%, and
revised Factor P to 38% for Groups 1 and 2 (Category A). For the other two groups in
Category B, Factor B became 41% and Factor P was revised to 59%.

58
 Appendix E: Developing the PCES

To calculate the group score, the team used the following formula:

∑ i=1 [Management Process Score (in %) × Adjusted Weight]

n

Group Score = × 100%

∑ i=1 (Adjusted Weight)
n

Where:
n is the number of management processes within a group

It has to be emphasized that, if a user considered a management process not to be

applicable to the project, then that process’ score was not calculated and its adjusted
weight was excluded from the calculation. This set-up is meant to prevent the assessment
of project performance from being undermined by irrelevant management processes.

Step 3: Category-level Score and Total Capital Efficiency Score

RT-DCC-07 used the formula above to calculate the score at the category level and
to generate the total capital efficiency score. For Category A, n is 11; for Category B,
n is 17. To produce the total capital efficiency score, the formula needed to include 28
(or all applicable) management processes.

59
 Appendix F:
Management Process – Detailed List

Category A: Corporate Capital Management

Group 1: Corporate and Financial Strategy

Adjusted Weight
A.1.1. Corporate Capital Planning
8.364

Description:
Corporate Capital Planning is a process of identifying the capital expenditures (CAPEX)
and major investment decisions at both portfolio and project levels by aligning them with
corporate vision, fiscal capacity, and market forecast. The plan can be either long-term
or short-term. In the latter case, the Corporate Capital Plan can be incorporated as a
part of the corporate annual report.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Does this project fit into the owner’s Corporate Capital Plan? 31.5%

2. Concerning the development of the Corporate Capital Plan, has

there been involvement of the corporate strategy team, project 31.5%
organization, and operations group?

3. Does the project team understand the key assumptions and metrics
of the Corporate Capital Plan that impact the Project Capital 37.0%
Efficiency?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Business Development/Strategic Planning
Manager, Finance Manager, Marketing/Sales Manager, Human Resource Manager,
Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

61
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
A.1.2. Strategic Scenario Analysis
8.326

Description:
Strategic Scenario Analysis is a process to identify the optimal project development
plan by analyzing the forecast market including the feedstock or raw material supply,
finished product values, and their price fluctuations. The Strategic Scenario Analysis
can result in a decision to accelerate, defer, or even abandon a project.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Has the Strategic Scenario Analysis been performed to forecast the

financial impacts of feedstock, raw material prices, and product value 13.3%
over time for the project?

2. Have different funding/financing strategies been studied and

11.0%
considered in the financial model?

3. Considering the fluctuations, has a sensitivity analysis been

11.6%
completed with the financial model?

4. Has the financial impact been documented, agreed upon, and

12.2%
communicated to all stakeholders?

5. If the project is schedule-driven, has the additional cost for

13.3%
accelerating the schedule been considered in the analysis?

6. If the project is schedule-driven, does the project team understand

12.8%
the value loss represented by each day past the deadline?

7. Is the project development plan achievable? 13.0%

8. Has the project development plan been communicated to all

12.8%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Business Development/Strategic Planning
Manager, Portfolio/Program Manager, Marketing/Sales Manager, Finance Manager,
Facility/Plant Manager, Operations/Production Manager, Project Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

62
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
A.1.3. Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization
8.411

Description:
Portfolio Optimization and Project Prioritization is a comprehensive process with
primary goals of maximizing certain factors including expected returns, as well as
minimizing the cost and financial risk of the entire portfolio by considering the potential
project. This process should include a portfolio cash flow analysis based on adding
the estimated cash flow of the project to help identify the opportunity to optimize the
portfolio cash flow by improving the project development plan.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Is a defined process followed for prioritizing projects and optimizing

23.4%
the portfolio?

2. Does the process include elimination of biases and avoidance of pet

24.6%
projects or overconfidence?

3. Has a cash flow analysis been performed for the project under the
25.1%
overall capital program portfolio?

4. Have the risks associated with project cash flow constraints, either
internally or externally funded, been identified, documented, agreed 26.9%
upon, and communicated to all stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Finance Manager, Portfolio/Program Manager,
Project Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

63
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
A.1.4. Country and Geographic Profile Assessment
7.238

Description:
Country and Geographic Profile Assessment is a high-level assessment process
to identify and analyze the profile of both project location and target markets. The
assessment should also address the supply-chain risks of the project location, logistics
to the target markets, and political factors considering the intended final products and
production capacities of the project.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Has an assessment been carried out regarding the characteristics

24.6%
and risks associated with the location of the project?

2. Is a risk mitigation plan in place to address risks associated with the

23.4%
location of the project?

3. Has the cost and schedule impact of unmitigated location risks

25.7%
been evaluated for inclusion of contingency allowance?

4. Have the country and geographic profile risks been documented,

26.3%
agreed upon, and communicated to all stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Marketing/Sales Manager, Contract/Legal
Manager, Operation/Production Manager, Risk Manager, Portfolio/Program Manager,
Project Manager, Procurement Manager, Construction Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

64
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
A.1.5. Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis
8.449

Description:
Project CAPEX and Investment Return Analysis is a process of analyzing the expected
capital investment and returns to identify the return of the investment (ROI) using the
metrics such as net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). It should
be initiated by identifying hurdle rates or minimum financial return requirements that
the corporate has set internally as targets to achieve in the investment. This analysis
is expected to improve major project development decisions including operation life
cycle and plan for future expansion, among others. For a large capital project whose
investments and returns have a significant influence on the corporate’s cash flow,
an Equity-to-Debt ratio study should also be included in the analysis to quantify the
financial impact.
For non-financially driven, regulatory, or environmental projects, the minimum financial
requirement may not apply. However, this analysis remains essential to inform the
corporate of the project financial figures.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Have different funding/financing strategies been considered in the

18.3%
analysis?

2. Does the analysis outcome meet or exceed the minimum financial

19.2%
requirements set for the project?

3. If the analysis outcome does not meet or exceed the minimum

requirements, has the business team understood the risks and
21.1%
agreed with the project team on the actions or plan to improve the
IRR or NPV?

4. Has the analysis result been communicated to decision-makers? 21.1%

5. Are all stakeholders aligned with the analysis result? 20.2%

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Finance Manager, Marketing/Sales Manager,
Operation/Production Manager, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

65
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
A.1.6. Project Risk Assessment
8.556

Description:
Project Risk Assessment is a process to identify, assess, and manage risk during
project development. The project team evaluates the impact of all potential risks,
including commercial, financial, environmental, technical, and project execution risks.
Then, mitigation plans are developed.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Has an assessment been performed to identify, evaluate, prioritize,

and manage risks associated with the development and execution 13.2%
of the project?

2. Has the risk analysis been incorporated into cost- and schedule-
12.9%
contingency calculations?

3. In the risk assessment, have lessons learned or lookback findings

11.5%
been applied?

4. Have the cost and schedule impacts of the unmitigatable risks been
12.9%
evaluated for inclusion of a contingency allowance?

5. Are unmitigated risks assigned an expected date of incurrence, at

which point the applicable contingency value should be applied or 11.8%
decommitted?

6. Is a risk mitigation plan in place to address the risks associated with

12.9%
the development and execution of the project?

7. Have the risks and mitigations been communicated to

12.9%
stakeholders?

8. Does the project charter require periodic review of the project risks
11.8%
and their mitigation?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Marketing/Sales Manager, Contract/Legal
Manager, Operation/Production Manager, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager,
Project Controls Manager, Engineering Manager, Procurement Manager, Construction
Manager, HSE Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

66
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Category A: Corporate Capital Management

Group 2: Capital Governance and Processes

Adjusted Weight
A.2.1. Project Governance
8.557

Description:
Project Governance is a process of establishing and adhering to a capital project
governance model. It should include budget authorization to review and approve the
capital expenditure in a timely manner. This process involves identifying gatekeepers
who are the key persons with the authority to make recommendations or decisions.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Is a project governance structure defined and included in the project

14.9%
charter?

2. Have gatekeepers – including those with financial authority – been

identified in, educated on, and engaged with the decision-making 18.1%
process?

3. Are gatekeepers independent of the project team and free of

16.1%
potential conflicts?

4. Has a process been developed through which the gatekeepers can

15.3%
set key expectations and decision criteria?

5. Are the approved project budget and schedule aligned with the
18.5%
available corporate funding and the agreed business drivers?

6. Has the governance process been communicated to the

16.9%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

67
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
A.2.2. Stakeholder Management
8.006

Description:
Stakeholders are individuals and groups, both inside and outside the organization,
who can influence the success of the project, and anyone who can be impacted by the
project execution. Stakeholder Management is a process used to identify stakeholders,
define their roles and responsibilities, manage expectations, and align the stakeholders
throughout the project life-cycle.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Has a stakeholder management plan been developed to engage and

33.9%
align the stakeholders?

2. Has the plan been communicated to stakeholders? 34.7%

3. Are all stakeholders aligned with the plan? 31.4%

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Portfolio/Program Manager, Human Resource
Manager, Project Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

68
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
A.2.3. Project Planning Process
8.255

Description:
Project Planning Process is a process for defining how the project will be planned. It
may, for instance, use stage gates to review project progress and for major decision-
making in project development or other planning methodology, such as agile or
integrated project delivery (IPD).

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Has the project planning process that supports the business case
25.7%
been defined and documented?

2. Does the project planning process include the development timeline

24.6%
and approval process?

3. Have the deliverables – project scope, plan, and cost and schedule
25.7%
baselines – been defined for the project?

4. Has the project planning process been communicated to all

24.0%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager,
Project Controls Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

69
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
A.2.4. Project Value Assurance Review
6.892

Description:
Project Value Assurance Review is a corporate managerial process to monitor and
assess the project target values throughout the project development plan. Project Value
is defined as the benefit to the project that includes but is not limited to its financial
value. The plan contains a list of Project Value items to be reviewed and their respective
assurance review schedules.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Has a list of value items with their review schedule been developed
19.0%
for the project?

2. Has the process to set value targets been developed and

20.5%
communicated to the business and project teams?

3. Has a team been identified that has the capability and qualification to
20.5%
conduct the review?

4. Is there a process to develop action plans to track the value

20.0%
improvement after each review?

5. Has the review process been communicated to all stakeholders? 20.0%

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

70
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
A.2.5. Portfolio Resource Allocation
7.834

Description:
Portfolio Resource Allocation is a corporate-level management process to enable
allocation and optimization of the project resources at a portfolio or higher level
to optimize the overall capital efficiency and risk management. The allocable and
transferable resources should include project contingency, management reserve, staff,
and materials.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Is there a process to define the resources needed to develop the

project – e.g., financial, facilities, equipment, materials, service, and 19.7%
personnel?

2. Have potential resource shortcomings in this project been

21.1%
identified?

3. Has a resource management plan been developed to identify the

appropriate resources and strategies to fulfill resource shortcomings
21.1%
at the portfolio or corporate level to assure capital efficiency and risk
management?

4. Has portfolio or corporate management helped develop or review

19.2%
the resources management plan?

5. Has the resource management plan been communicated to the

18.8%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

71
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Category B: Capital Project Deployment

Group 3: Capital Project Expectations

Adjusted Weight
B.3.1. Project Objectives Definition and Alignment
8.843

Description:
Project Objectives Definition and Alignment is a process of defining, communicating,
and aligning on the objectives and priorities of the project delivery to meet the business
strategy, operation requirements, and production expectations set by the corporate. The
process should also identify the primary project drivers and their priorities in the project
selection and delivery including health and safety, cost, schedule, quality, sustainability,
and security.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Have the project objectives been defined, prioritized, and included in

34.8%
the project charter?

2. Is the process for reviewing the objectives included in the project

32.6%
charter?

3. Have the project objectives been communicated to and aligned with

32.6%
the stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Facility/Plant Manager, Operation/Production
Manager, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager, Project Controls Manager,
Engineering Manager, Construction Manager, Procurement Manager, QA/QC Manager,
HSE Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

72
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
B.3.2. Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Expectations
7.868

Description:
HSE Expectations aims to establish the initial expectations for the achievement of
occupational health, safety, and environmental goals of the project. This process should
cover not only the expectations during construction but also during operation and
maintenance. The HSE Expectations should lead to a plan to further develop detailed
HSE requirements.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Are the HSE expectations established and included in the project

21.2%
charter?

2. Does the project charter include a plan to develop HSE

20.3%
requirements?

3. Does the plan identify the required stakeholders? 19.4%

4. Does the plan include the process for reviewing the HSE
19.4%
requirements?

5. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

19.8%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Operation/Production Manager, Project
Manager, Engineering Manager, Construction Manager, Procurement Manager, HSE
Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

73
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
B.3.3. Quality Expectations
8.004

Description:
Quality Expectations is a process to establish expectations for both the quality in the
design of the facility and the quality assurance and control (QA/QC) of the project
delivery including the activities in the engineering, procurement, construction, and
CSU phases that impact the quality of the project. The Quality Expectations must
address key quality requirements for the project standards and processes in execution
and operation and they lead to a plan to develop detailed quality standards and
requirements.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Are the quality expectations established and included in the project

20.1%
charter?

2. Does the project charter include a plan to develop quality standards

19.1%
and requirements?

3. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 20.1%

4. Does the project charter include the process for reviewing the
19.1%
standards and requirements?

5. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

21.6%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Operation/Production Manager, Project
Manager, Engineering Manager, Construction Manager, Procurement Manager, QA/QC
Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

74
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
B.3.4. Project Target Setting
7.803

Description:
The process of Project Target Setting aims to identify and set project targets including
the target duration of overall project development, target project cost limit according
to the commercial model created by the business team, environmental performance
target, and production target, among others. The objectives of this process are to
assure the commitment towards efficiency during the project development and to drive
the project team to improve the execution performance compared to internal or industry
benchmarks. The project targets should be conveyed to and understood by the project
team, and they should be further used as a guide in developing the project scope.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Have the project targets been defined and included in the project
34.8%
charter?

2. Does the charter include the process for reviewing project targets? 31.9%

3. Have the project targets been communicated to and aligned with the
33.3%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Finance Manager, Portfolio/Program Manager,
Project Manager, Project Controls Manager, Engineering Manager, Construction
Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

75
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
B.3.5. Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities
8.139

Description:
The process of Project Execution Constraints and Opportunities is to address potential
constraints during the project execution timeframe. These include major equipment and
long-lead items whose procurement could cause delays, local content requirements,
contractor capabilities, and unique requirements for commissioning and startup (CSU),
among others. This process should also identify opportunities to further optimize the
engineering, construction, procurement, and CSU phases of the project in front end
planning.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Does the project charter identify and document constraints and

49.4%
opportunities during project execution?

2. Have the constraints and opportunities been communicated to and

50.6%
aligned with the stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Project Sponsor, Operation/Production Manager, Project Manager, Engineering
Manager, Construction Manager, Procurement Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

76
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
B.3.6. Integrated Project Controls Expectations
7.790

Description:
The process of Integrated Project Controls Expectations aims to establish the
expectations related to controlling, tracking, reporting, and forecasting project
performance. These include the cost, schedule, and productivity performance during
the engineering, procurement, construction, and CSU phases of the project.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Are the project controls expectations established and included in the

19.1%
project charter?

2. Does the project charter include a plan to develop integrated project

19.6%
controls requirements?

3. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 20.1%

4. Does the plan include a process for reviewing the requirements? 19.6%

5. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

21.5%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager,
Project Controls Manager, Engineering Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

77
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
B.3.7. Operation and Maintenance Expectations
7.737

Description:
The process of Operation and Maintenance Expectations is to set the expectations
for the operation and maintenance of the facility, including product quality and
quantity, operation safety, environmental impact, and maintenance philosophy. These
expectations need to be considered in front end planning, engineering, procurement,
construction, and CSU phases of the project. They lead to a plan for the development of
detailed operation and maintenance requirements.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Are the operation and maintenance expectations established and

19.8%
included in the project charter?

2. Does the project charter include a plan to develop operation and

19.9%
maintenance requirements?

3. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 20.6%

4. Is the process to review the requirements included in the plan? 20.5%

5. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

21.0%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Portfolio/Program Manager, Facility/Plant
Manager, Operations/Production Manager, Project Manager, Engineering Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

78
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
B.3.8. Benchmarking Expectations
6.617

Description:
The process of Benchmarking Expectations aims to identify benchmarking criteria and
timeline in various phases of the project. The process should start with benchmarking
the chosen technical solution that meets the business objective against peers and
includes benchmarking of project scope development in terms of high-level cost
and schedule. This process also covers identifying criteria for benchmarking the
performance of engineering, procurement, construction, and CSU activities. The
Benchmarking Expectations lead to the development of a detailed project benchmarking
plan.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Are the benchmarking expectations established and included in the

19.8%
project charter?

2. Does the project charter include a benchmarking plan? 19.3%

3. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 18.8%

4. Does the plan include a process for reviewing? 20.3%

5. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

21.8%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Project Sponsor, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager, Engineering Manager,
Construction Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

79
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
B.3.9. Best Practices Selection
7.569

Description:
Best Practice is defined as a disciplined practice used to improve project cost, schedule,
safety, quality, reliability, performance, and efficiency. A Best Practice requires
collaboration, participation, and interaction by project team members and Subject
Matter Experts (SMEs) for its implementation to realize the intended outcome. The Best
Practices Selection is a management process to identify, analyze, and confirm the Best
Practices that apply to the project development and operation.

Typical Best Practices for downstream and chemicals projects:

1. Class of Facility 10. Constructability

2. Technology Selection 11. Modularization
3. Design-to-Capacity 12. Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)
4. Process Simplification 13. Zero Accidents Techniques (ZAT)
5. Waste Minimization 14. Preventive and Predictive
Maintenance
6. Energy Optimization
15. Reliability, Availability, and
7. Value Engineering
Maintainability (RAM) Analysis
8. Design and Engineering Tools
16. Hazard and Operability Study
Selection
17. Facility Closure Requirement
9. Facility Standardization

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Is a plan to conduct a best practices selection workshop included in

25.2%
the project charter?

2. Are the required stakeholders and asset SMEs identified in the

25.8%
plan?

3. Does the plan include a process for reviewing the selection? 24.5%

4. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

24.5%
stakeholders and SMEs?

Stakeholders:
Project Sponsor, Facility/Plant Manager, Operations/Production Manager, Project
Manager, Engineering Manager, Construction Manager, Procurement Manager, QA/QC
Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

80
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
B.3.10. Lessons Learned Plan
7.284

Description:
The Lessons Learned Plan is a process of examining the existing lessons and
knowledge that are potentially beneficial to the project delivery. It should contain a plan
to summarize the applicable lessons and implement them in the project to avoid the
recurrence of negative lessons and promote the implementation of positive lessons. The
process also includes documenting lessons learned from the current project for future
reference.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Is a plan to analyze lessons learned included in the project charter? 26.3%

2. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 24.3%

3. Does the plan include a process for reviewing the lessons learned
24.3%
findings?

4. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

25.0%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Project Manager, Engineering Manager,
Construction Manager, Operation Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

81
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Category B: Capital Project Deployment

Group 4: Project Planning and Delivery

Adjusted Weight
B.4.1. Project Scope Development
8.961

Description:
Project Scope Development is a process of defining the project’s scope during front end
planning including the level of the scope that needs to be achieved. The process is to
ensure that the project meets the goals and strategies defined at corporate and portfolio
levels.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Is a plan of project scope development included in the project

25.6%
charter?

2. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 25.0%

3. Does the plan include a process for reviewing the scope? 23.9%

4. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

25.6%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Facility/Plant Manager, Operations/Production
Manager, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager, Project Controls Manager,
Engineering Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

82
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

B.4.2. Site Condition, Infrastructure, and Accessibility Adjusted Weight

Assessment 8.337

Description:
Site Condition, Infrastructure, and Accessibility Assessment is a management process
to identify the characteristics of the project site including existing facilities, underground
conditions, potential environmental impacts, and current infrastructure status, as well as
to assess the infrastructure and accessibility requirements that need to be addressed in
the engineering, procurement, construction, and CSU phases.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Is a plan to conduct site condition, infrastructure, and accessibility

27.0%
assessment included in the project charter?

2. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 23.9%

3. Is the process to review included in the plan? 23.9%

4. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

25.2%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Project Sponsor, Facility/Plant Manager, Operations/Production Manager, Portfolio/
Program Manager, Project Manager, Engineering Manager, Engineering Team Lead,
HSE Manager, Construction Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

83
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
B.4.3. Project Team Organization
7.998

Description:
Project Team Organization is the process of establishing a project organizational
plan, including the creation of an organizational chart, assignment of roles and
responsibilities, definition of the format, and frequency of communications among
members for effective project management. The process should also identify part-time
and non-resident members from different business units who are required to assist the
project when needed. The organizational chart does not necessarily need to have actual
persons assigned to the position at the time of its initial development.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Has an organizational plan for the project been developed and

19.7%
included in the project charter?

2. Does the project charter include a plan to define and document

20.2%
roles and responsibilities, and communication format?

3. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 18.6%

4. Does the plan include a process for reviewing the organization? 19.7%

5. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

21.8%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Project Sponsor, Portfolio/Program Manager, Project Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

84
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
B.4.4. Project Standards and Specifications
8.112

Description:
Project Standards and Specifications is a process of developing requirements and
guidelines that govern project engineering, procurement, construction, and CSU work.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Does the project charter include a plan to define project standards

25.6%
and specifications?

2. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 24.4%

3. Is a process to review the strategy included in the plan? 23.8%

4. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

26.2%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Project Sponsor, Facility/Plant Manager, Operations/Production Manager, Portfolio/
Program Manager, Project Manager, Engineering Manager, Engineering Team Lead,
HSE Manager, Construction Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

85
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
B.4.5. Best Practices Implementation Plan
7.187

Description:
The Best Practices Implementation is a management process to develop an executable
plan to implement selected Best Practices during project development.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Has an implementation plan of selected best practices been

25.0%
developed and included in the project charter?

2. Have the required stakeholders and relevant SMEs been identified? 25.0%

3. Does the plan include a process for reviewing the implementation? 23.1%

4. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

26.9%
stakeholders and SMEs?

Stakeholders:
Project Sponsor, Facility/Plant Manager, Operations/Production Manager, Project
Manager, Engineering Manager, Construction Manager, Procurement Manager, QA/QC
Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

86
 Appendix F: Management Process – Detailed List

Adjusted Weight
B.4.6. Contracting Strategy and Management
8.282

Description:
Contracting Strategy and Management is a process of developing a systematic
framework to define project delivery and contract strategies, as well as to manage
project contracts with their associated documents and procedures. This process
should also include the identification of dispute prevention techniques and resolution
mechanisms that should be used in the project.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Does the project charter include a plan to define contracting strategy

26.3%
and management?

2. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 24.0%

3. Is the process to review the strategy included in the plan and has it
24.0%
been signed off by appropriate parties?

4. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

25.7%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Project Sponsor, Contract/Legal Manager, Project Manager, Project Controls Manager,
Engineering Manager, Procurement Manager, Construction Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

87
Development of a Project Capital Efficiency Scorecard

Adjusted Weight
B.4.7. Change Management
8.384

Description:
Change Management is a process of incorporating a balanced change culture for
the effective recognition, planning, evaluation, and management of changes. This
process does not only cover change management during project execution, but also
the management of project objectives and scope in the early phases of the project with
collaboration and alignment with the business team.

Relative
Implementation Assessment Questions: Importance

1. Is a plan to define change management included in the project

27.8%
charter?

2. Are the required stakeholders identified in the plan? 24.1%

3. Does the plan include a process for reviewing the strategy? 22.8%

4. Has the plan been communicated to and aligned with the

25.3%
stakeholders?

Stakeholders:
Business Unit Manager, Project Sponsor, Operations/Production Manager, Project
Manager, Project Controls Manager, Engineering Manager, Procurement Manager,
Construction Manager, QA/QC Manager

Key Improvement Areas:

Investment Returns Schedule Operation

88
Notes

89
Research Team DCC-07, Capital Efficiency Scorecard
for Downstream and Chemicals Projects

Rohit Aggarwal, Ascend Performance Materials

Turki Al-Sulami, SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
Thomas Butts, Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Stephen Cabano, Pathfinder, LLC
* Carlos Caldas, The University of Texas at Austin
Glen Cullop, Eastman Chemical Company
* Cathy Farina, DyCat Solutions, Vice-Chair
Fred Haney, DyCat Solutions
Makarand Hastak, Purdue University
Andrew Ingram, Motiva
* Arno Jansen, Motiva
Gregory LaStrapes, Flint Hills Resources, LP
James Landry, Albemarle Corporation
Vikas Moharir,Matrix PDM
* Daniel Oliveira, CII
Amy Sager, Kiewit Energy Group
* Lokesh Sharma, Chevron, Chair
Jan Shumate, Eastman Chemical Company
Robert Smith, H+M Industrial EPC
* Zhe Yin, The University of Texas at Austin

Past member
Hasan Al-Taha, Aramco Services Company

* Principal authors

Editor: Michael E. Burns

 Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316
FR-DCC-07