FACTORS IMPACTING SMALL

PROJECT EXECUTION

by
Gary R. Smith
North Dakota State University

and

Zhili Gao
and
Cynthia Patterson
Iowa State University

A Report to
The Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin

Under the Guidance of

CII Research Team 161
Small Project Execution

Research Report 161-11

May 2002

Reviewed by CII 3Feb04

Copyright © 2002 Construction Industry InstituteTM.

The University of Texas at Austin.

CII members may reproduce and distribute work internally in any medium
at no cost to internal recipients. CII members are permitted to revise and adapt
this work for the 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 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.

 Table of Contents
Topic Page

Table of Contents ii
List of Figures iii
List of Tables iv
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Background 1
Purpose 2
Scope 2
Objectives 2
Research Approach 2

Chapter 2 Literature Survey 4

Background 4
Literature Review 5
Project Success Factors 15
Small Project Definition 22
Literature Review Conclusion 22

Chapter 3 Data Collection 24

Survey Development 24
Survey Summary 25
Survey Closure 48

Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Interview Summary 49

Introduction 49
Analysis 49
Performance Savings 55
Interview Summary 57
Key Findings 68

Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions 68

Summary 68
Conclusion 75
Issues in Small Project Management 77
Recommendations for Additional Research 79

Cited Literature 80
Bibliography 83
Appendices 87
Appendix A – Research Team Listing 88
Appendix B – Survey 89
Appendix C - Data 100

ii
 List of Figures
Figure No. Title Page

4.1 Hypothetical Budget Allocation Process 58

iii
 List of Tables
Table No. Title Page

2.1 Summary Review of SP-13 Special Projects Manual 6

2.2 Managing Small vs. Large (Westney 1985) 9
2.3 Adaptors vs. Innovators (Tullett 1996) 12

3.1 Survey and Interview Count 24

3.2 Demographic Distribution of Surveys 25
3.3 Risk Comparison Small vs. Large Projects 26
3.4 Organizational Structure Longevity 38
3.5 Safety and Health Question Responses 43
3.6 Small project Incident and Recordable Rates 43
3.7 Large project Incident and Recordable Rates 44
3.8 Automated Controls 44
3.9 Technology and Communications 45

4.1 Average Budget Performance (% of Projects Completed in past 12 months) 50

4.2 Average Schedule Performance (% of Projects Completed in past 12 months) 50
4.3 Funding Approval and Mechanical Completion Comparisons 51
4.4 Standard Process Impact 52
4.5 Performance 53
4.6 Estimated Performance Savings 56

5.1 Progress on SP-13 Issues 69

5.2 Comparison of Literature and Survey Success Factors 74
5.3 Tier Rankings of Model Elements 74

iv
 Chapter 1 Introduction

Background

Many companies use project manuals that define time-tested procedures for large project
execution and delivery. However, large project delivery processes are not easily ‘scaled down’ for
small projects and, by some standards; fail to deliver the projects in an effective manner. Factors
contributing to the reduced effectiveness include:

• The compressed project life cycle reduces team effectiveness and suggests that measures of
project success commonly associated with large projects may, in fact, be inappropriate for
teams managing small projects.

• Small projects are likely to experience “expertise” gaps since the opportunities for full-time
staff are smaller and part-time assignments may not achieve the integration that leads to
optimal solutions of problems. In some instances this expertise could be ‘borrowed’ or
‘loaned’ for a short time, but multi-disciplined or multi-skilled design and construction
staff would reduce problems of expertise.

• Due to perceived “value,” small projects often get placed into low organizational priority or
“low visibility” positions. Priority and visibility are important in staffing decisions,
resource allocation, and the “participation” level of upper management.

• Small project documentation often falls into one of two extremes. It is either excessive or
cumbersome when it tries to follow the same process used for large projects, or it is
inadequate when no formal process has been established.

The abbreviated list is not an exhaustive treatment of small project variations or problems
compared to ‘large’ projects. It is provided to demonstrate that small projects have many unique
characteristics, face significantly greater problems within organizational boundaries, and may be
driven by success factors unlike the project success factors for larger projects.

As noted above, large projects generally have the advantage of well-defined process and
procedure manuals that define the steps and actions necessary to deliver the project. However,
small project management teams often do not have dedicated process and procedure manuals and
they attempt to adapt the large project manuals where appropriate. Thus, small project execution
may result in less than optimal project cost, quality, and schedules when executed using standard
project delivery systems. It is believed that the processes and factors contributing to small project
success may be different than those identified on large projects.

By improving the effectiveness and consistency of the small project delivery process, the
entire industry will benefit. Identification of successful practices will enable others to change or
implement the suggested methods. Financial benefits from the changes are difficult to forecast,
but it is reasonable to speculate that successful small projects have savings potential for owners
and improved competitiveness for the industry. This research is highly applicable to all sectors of
industry engaged in execution of small projects. Owners will benefit from savings created through
improved delivery processes for the 40-60% of current capital budgets now spent on “small”

1
projects. This work will assist contractors and vendors in aligning their organization and
procedures to better meet owner’s small capital project programs

Purpose
The purpose of this project was to research and document the best practices associated with
the small project execution process. Included within the best practice concepts was the
examination of technology applications to the small project environment.

Scope

The focus of this project was on small capital projects whose characteristics, as defined by
a combination of complexity, organization, work volume, and staffing requirements, require the
use of modified project management and execution processes or procedures. Small projects are
not easily definable. A monetary definition on the boundary of small projects was used in the
research to assist in limiting the project scope. Projects were limited to between $100,000 and
$2,000,000. It was anticipated that other organizations identify or categorize small projects based
on factors other than simply the dollar value or have dollar value limits that would be significantly
different. It was also anticipated by the research that management practices and procedures would
be highly variable within the industry. The objectives of this study were established to refine the
focus of the research to be accomplished by this project.

Objectives

This research seeks to resolve the following objectives:

• Identify the problems in the small project execution process.

• Identify approaches and modified procedures, processes and resources for small
projects.
• Identify the best practices and key factors for successful small project execution.
• Identify leading edge technology applications for small projects.
• Identify opportunities and development of personnel for multi-skilled design and
construction assignments.

Research Approach

The idea behind this research is that there exists an opportunity to continue to improve the overall
competitiveness of the industry by researching and documenting successful small project
execution processes. The approach to the research was to collect and evaluate information and
data from small project processes of owners and contractors. Data to support the success of the
processes was solicited from Construction Industry Institute (CII) member companies in the form
of small project execution manuals and related documentation that can demonstrate process
improvement. Empirical and anecdotal data will be obtained to support the effectiveness of
studied processes. The following tasks are established to achieve the project objectives.

2
Task 1 – Literature Review. An excellent starting point for the literature review was the Manual
for Small (Special) Project Management (SP13) and related CII research on project organization,
scope definition, and delivery systems. Suggestions and concepts from these previous works were
appropriate to consider for small project adaptation. The purpose of the detailed review was to
avoid duplication of effort and to identify gaps in practices already identified for small projects.
Information and data related to project delivery systems used in other industries would be
investigated where the projects have similar characteristics. A detailed search of other literature on
small project management will be examined for applicable information and data.

Task 2 – Data Collection. Data collection was a two-stage process. First, telephone contacts and
focused surveys on small project execution problems, issues, technology applications and solutions
were issued to cooperating company project managers. Participants in the survey were requested
to complete surveys and to provide appropriate supporting documentation. Confidentiality of
proprietary information was strictly controlled with access only permitted to the researchers.
Contributors to the survey process were requested to act as a follow-up resource contact for the
project team. A fairly even balance between owner, designer, and contractor responses was
desired. In addition to project execution processes, key performance criteria for projects were
collected. The second phase, site visits were conducted. During the site visits clarification of
survey questions were recorded in addition to interviewee observations regarding

Task 3 – Best Practices Identification. Best practices often are not ‘benchmark’ best practices
but consensus practices of the industry. Project performance indicators obtained in the data
collection phase were used to identify those practices that consistently achieve better performance.
In addition the information on successful projects from the literature search was considered in
identifying best practices.

Task 4 – Research Summary Report. This report was prepared to gather the information and
data from the project. The report is organized as follows:

• Chapter 1 is the project background, introduction and task description.

• Chapter 2 is a summary of the literature on small project processes and success factors.
The purpose is to identify the key practices identified by others that influence small project
execution.
• Chapter 3 summarizes the data from completed surveys.
• Chapter 4 presents data analysis and a consensus of ideas from the interview process.
• Chapter 5 summarizes the research findings and concludes with several recommendations
for further consideration on small project execution research.

3
 Chapter 2 Literature Survey
Background

The original work performed for the Construction Industry Institute on small projects was
published in July 1991, Manual for Small (Special) Project Management (SP-13). At the time it
was published it truly was a special publication within the project management body of knowledge
that CII had compiled and disseminated. Until SP-13, the primary focus of CII had been on
improving large project processes. Therefore, SP-13 is an important publication to review as a
point of beginning for this research.

This chapter is organized in a somewhat unconventional manner when compared to similar

background literature chapters in a research project. Typically the intention of a background
chapter is to synthesize current body of literature on a specific topic. Appropriately performed, the
breadth of project management topics would result with a very lengthy primer on project
management, with occasional reflections on small projects. Therefore, the choice was made to
avoid ‘reinventing of the wheel’ and keep the focus of the background section, as much as
possible, on the more limited body of literature specifically dedicated to small project issues. The
exception to this was the review of project success factors, where small and large projects tended
to blend together in the research.

Small Projects Defined

Immediately the problem arose on defining what would be considered as a small project.
The CII SP-13 publication approached it by describing the differences between large project
systems and small project systems. One clarification should be highlighted before the literature is
examined. Large projects are typically stand-alone ventures. When viewing small projects in a
stand-alone fashion, it is easier to identify differences. The focus appropriate to the vast majority
of the companies involved in the research was small capital projects in a program of work or as
elements of a capital project budget that were dedicated to a group of small projects. The literature
further confuses the issue further by assuming, in many instances, that small contractors execute
small projects. Thus, examining the literature to help clarify the question, “What is a small
project?” was included in the literature focus and those findings will be reported in this section.

Literature Survey Organization

The first overview covers the primary issues and solutions presented in SP-13. This
information is followed by information extracted from the limited body of literature on small
projects. The subject area format chosen for presentation follows the subject areas of project
management research used by the CII. The first five subject areas follow the project execution
process from front end planning through start-up and operations. The remaining areas are in-depth
views at primary subject areas in project management.

Special Publication 13 (SP13)

SP-13, Manual for (Small) Special Project Management was prepared by an Action Team
that examined and identified the significant problems unique to small projects. They studied
potential solutions and presented their solutions under three broad classifications as follows:
• The Organizational Approach
• Guidelines for the Planning Phase
• Guidelines for In-process Management

4
The remaining six chapters in SP-13 focus primarily on good management practices that would
best fit small projects. Most of the content in these sections represents fundamental management
practices tailored to small projects. Table 2.1 was prepared from the problems and solutions
sections of SP-13. Detailed explanations of each issue and solution are provided in SP-13 and are
not repeated in the table. The subject areas used in Table 2.1 were adopted from the proposed
knowledge area organization used by the Construction Industry Institute to establish a consistent
outline between the survey and research publications. In reclassifying the information used in
Table 2.1, it was recognized that some topics could arguably be listed in more than one subject
area. Therefore, some of the solutions proposed in SP-13 have been associated with areas not
originally contemplated by the Action Team that prepared the document. This classification
reflects an interpretation and viewpoint of the author of this research report.

Literature Review

The review of the literature is limited to those articles and books specifically addressing
small capital projects executed by large owner organizations. The articles on small contracts or
small contractor management problems generally had limited value in the context of this research
project. The search was limited to materials applicable to small projects from domestic and
international sources. In some cases conference articles and limited release publications
(referenced by authors) could not be recovered. The limitation on the scope of the literature
review was necessary to maintain focus on small project activities and not rewrite the entire body
of knowledge on project management.

Facility Management Problems

El-Bibany, et.al. (1996) in their analysis of project management functions from a facility
management function identified a number of problems faced by multiple facility owners. The
authors did not represent that there was any difference between this level of project management
and large capital project management. Thus the problems they have identified are presented as an
overview. The problems encountered in multiple facility ownership applicable to small capital
project management are as follows:
• Some seasonal project demand fluctuation
• Lack of an accurate and efficient project priority system
• Resource allocation created by the above elements
• Early commitment to time and cost without accurate information
• High project load carried by each player
• Lack of a system to coordinate work at a project level
• Higher level of detail activity by project manager
• Lack of an organizational responsibility/reward system for project management in
the systems studied.
• Operation of the system governed by external constraints.

5
Table 2.1 Summary Review of SP-13 Special Projects Manual

Subject Area(1) Issues Identified In SP-13 (2) Solutions Suggested In SP-13 (3)
FRONT END • Poor scope definition a frequent problem • Structured approach to risk management
PLANNING • Risk proportion – low dollar projects that can stop the entire • Owners – develop project road map
operation • Use scope definition checklists
DESIGN • Engineering purchased in a sequential fashion with go/no go • Use strong matrix approach in design (people topic)
decisions • Freeze project scope – manage scope growth
• Cost is larger proportionally • Work breakdown structure/establish work hour and cost
budgets
• Incorporate constructability
• Concurrent owner review
• Coordinate with procurement
PROCUREMENT None Clearly Identified • Capitalize on vendor expertise even during design
• Validate procurement milestones
• Include contingency time in materials orders
• Use modularization concepts
• Limit sub tier subcontracting
• Relate procurement to the schedule
CONSTRUCTION None Clearly Identified • Contractors should establish area or plant offices
• Computerize materials management
• Use a startup team
• Visit Site and understand scope
• Use WBS and develop supporting plans
• Develop Project strategy document
• Promote communication
• Do not start work without the resources
START-UP & None Clearly Identified • Operability, and maintainability considered in design
OPERATIONS • Seek operator input

6
Table 2.1 Continued
Subject Area(1) Issues Identified In SP-13 (2) Solutions Suggested In SP-13 (3)
PEOPLE • Personnel assigned to small projects are often inexperienced • Create appropriate manager titles & give PM authority
personnel • Select people with proper attributes
• Multiple project responsibilities for a single manager • Use only experienced Personnel/with right experience
• Poor career attractiveness (stability in larger project) • Maintain skills database & use personality profiles
• Lost expertise – mentors for younger people • Consider consultants and retired personnel
• Maintain core special projects group
• Cross train/maintain standing teams
• Expert centers
PROJECT PROCESSES • Reinventing the wheel • Integrate small project management into TQM program
• Share lessons learned
• Establish written procedures & standard forms etc
• Limit owner reviews
PROJECT CONTROLS • Short duration • Use formal project controls
• Poor basis for control
• Inapplicable standard control systems
CONTRACTING • Contractor Competence -hard to get a good contractor for a • Partner with subcontractors and vendors
small project • Limit contractor liability
• Subcontracting vs. direct hire • Include incentives
• Large contractors tend to organize according to market
segment; smaller cannot
SAFETY, HEALTH AND • Safety and quality easily compromised on small projects • Emphasize safety and health
ENVIRONMENT
TECHNOLOGY AND • Lack of computer literacy • Computerize project controls
INFORMATION • Promote computer literacy
SYSTEMS • Consider bar coding
MISCELLANEOUS • Regulatory requirements applied with equal force • Make small project assignments an honor not penalty
• Remote Location • Employ team building
• Pay scale differential
• Be cautious introducing new procedures or technology
Notes: (1) Topic headings defined by CII areas of knowledge
(2) Classification of the issues is the responsibility of this author, not the Action Team for SP-13.

7
 • Interaction with and dependence on other internal divisions increases the level of
uncertainty.

These factors would appear to have some universal application to any project management system
working with a large number of small projects with a larger organization. Their work took a broad
view of developing improved processes and demonstrates the problems associated with
attempting to isolate the issues without a guiding framework for classification.

Small Project Features

Westney (1985), developed one of the few textbooks dedicated to small project
management. The author identifies many of the features of small projects that make them a
unique challenge. Collected from various sections of the text the following problems or issues
were identified:
• “Turnaround” projects that occur on critical manufacturing or process units have a
large potential to assist or damage profitability. Many projects have
disproportionate risk to their value
• Many small projects are in a production environment which increases the number
of organizational interfaces
• Short timeframe for small projects
• Operating environment often dictates process and procedures
• Plants are organized for production, not engineering and construction
• Special project control problems
o Short project life
o Shared responsibility among departments
o Problems in obtaining data
o Many projects to be controlled simultaneously
• Standard procedures and techniques for large projects do not fit
• Need a method to accumulate cost and schedule data to improve resource
management, forecasting, and reporting
• Need a consistent approach to projects – but be adaptable to existing procedures

Also introduced in the early section of the book were criteria for small project management techniques.
1. A standard approach. Each small project is different but there is a need to assure
efficiency and consistency in the management of the projects. A standard approach is
more likely to be used and understood, but it also needs to have sufficient flexibility to
be effective.
2. Simple systems and techniques. Although the management problem is complex, the
personnel who will be exposed to project management requirements will need
appropriate training.
3. Fast response. Short durations indicate a need for techniques that provide information
and responses quickly and efficiently. Any change in the host plant environment is
likely to impact the schedule and resource availability.

Westney also illustrated the complexity facing a project manager for small projects in a very
effective and concise manner. Table 2.2 is a modified version of the original comparison. This
table illustrates the problems facing small project managers from strictly a quantitative look at
how fundamental parameters change for a similar dollar volume of work on large projects.

8
Although the table suggests that a full time project manager and formal controls are not used for
small projects, the project manager is a full time project manager for a large number of
independent projects. Project controls are not as formal for small projects, but small projects do
require project control systems.

Table 2.2 Managing Small vs. Large (Westney 1985)

Hypothetical $50 million in Capital Project expenditure
Parameter Large Project Small Project
No. of Projects 1 100
No. of Estimates 1 100
No. of Schedules 1 100
No. of Purchase Orders and 100-200 500-1000
Subcontracts
Full time PM team Yes No
Formal Control Procedures Yes No

Multiple Small Projects

A book on Project Management of multiple projects and contracts edited by Loftus
(1999) showcases small capital project problems as:
• Too many projects with too little capital available
• Too few resources to manage all the projects
• Project definition is imprecise
• Project authorization process is not understood (including time to achieve
authorization)
• Authority to approve expenditure inappropriate to the task
• Existing workload in the capital projects department will be ignored by person
who authorizes the next project
Their prioritization is described by the following categories:
• Essential (cannot be avoided or delayed)
• Desirable (cannot be avoided but may be delayed)
• Opportunity (can be avoided and delayed but offers acceptable return on
investment)
• Other (anything else and projects under investigation)
This ranking process is applied in the project process cycle at least six months before the
beginning of the next financial year.

The elements of scope definition, timing, staffing, budgets, and workload are common
between Loftus and Westney. These and additional factors from the literature review, specific to
small capital projects, are organized using the headings provided in Table 2.1. Some citations
will repeat in several sections due to the breadth of the work reported in the material referenced.

9
Front End Planning

Front end planning includes all activities in preparing a project to the point where the
owner authorizes funding for complete design and construction. Front end planning generally
involves the definition of the project from a concept or need by an operating group in a facility or
a mandated project from a health or safety requirement through perhaps the first 10% to 30% of
the design. The importance of the preliminary design is to be able to develop as accurate an
estimate as possible and to identify major equipment requirements as early as possible. Harding
(1997) suggested that the following be used for fast-track scope definition on small projects. The
definition of “small” included all projects up to $5MM.
• Small projects require additional resources to assist in scope definition as a percentage of
the overall cost of a project (including a negotiated fee with an engineering firm)
• Management should relax the documentation requirements for funding requests and
project approval. Delete non-essential documentation requirements.
• Process deliverables were described as a written scope document, piping and
instrumentation diagrams, equipment arrangement drawings, project cost estimate, and
schedule.
• Allow projects to have 15-20% contingency instead of usual 10%, but not an excuse for
eventual shortcuts
• Start on permit applications as early as possible
• Project approvals – partial approval for some projects to perform design engineering and
place long lead orders (be sure to include cancellation costs)

Malwitz (1986) contends that feasibility estimates can be no better than +/- 30%. In order to
achieve this level of estimate between 10% and 20% of the capital cost is needed for developing
and obtaining preliminary engineering plans, drawings, vendor quotations, and contractor bids.

Westney (1985) contributes something of interest to the decision making side of the small
project front end planning process. The author encourages development of guideline for project
decision making for each project on the relative importance of: 1) investment cost; 2) operating
cost; 3) performance characteristics; and 4) start-up date. An example of a decision guideline
would be; it is worth $4000 in increased investment (cost) for each day that the start-up date is
advanced. Westney also described project prioritization in the front end-planning phase briefly.
Three primary questions were posed for evaluation.
1. To what extent is the project essential? (work scope priority)
2. Does it involve an essential system (operations) in the facility?
3. What is the financial attractiveness of the project? (return on investment)

Front end planning leads up to a approval for proceeding to design and procurement activities.
However, Harding proposed the use of a checklist throughout the project process. The general
outline of the checklist follows:

Scope
• Scope project requirements
• Develop P&IDs
• Prepare preliminary equipment arrangements

10
 • Develop project cost estimate/budget
• Develop project schedule
• Complete Appropriation request documentation
• Start environmental permitting process (or other permits)

Approval
• Get management approval of the project
• Identify possible revisions to scope and budget

Design
• Bid/select engineering firm
• Specify process piping
• Specify auxiliary/utility equipment
• Specify instrumentation
• Specify control hardware
• Finalize P&IDs
• Finalize equipment arrangements
• Prepare drawings (civil, mechanical, architectural, steel, concrete, piping drawings,
electrical power drawings, instrumentation and control wiring drawings)

Procurement
• Bid/Select (process equipment, auxiliary/utility equipment, instrumentation, control
hardware)
• Approve vendor data
• Inspect/test at fabricator/manufacturer facility as needed
• Bid/Select (contractors – if multiple contractors needed)

Construction
• Authors list 16 activities that may or may not be appropriate to any one particular
small project. This listing is not included here, but the list represents actual
construction activities appropriate for developing a project schedule.

Commissioning and Startup

• For small projects typically shown as one line item
• Start-up may be one line item or specific individual activities
• Start on permit applications as early as possible

Design
Design, as suggested in the previous section, often starts before the project is ‘officially’ a
project. With regard to the complete design, Harding (1997) suggests that an adequate design
package is always crucial for ensuring smooth construction. Harding identified two main
objectives to be accomplished in the design phase
• Identify and completely specify the long-lead equipment items. Complete vendor data
will be needed in some cases to complete design (particularly dimensional data).
• Development of construction drawings so the construction can be phased.

11
 Procurement
Harding (1997) proposed that a good practice is to not bid equipment for fast-track project
but to select vendors and it is easier to justify if you have plant standards for equipment. No other
direct reference to project procurement was found for small projects.

Construction
Harding (1997) suggests that if you have onsite construction forces be sure to schedule
and prioritize the work process. If using a contractor selection process, the design may be phased
if design will be released as work packages. Recognizing the importance in many plants for rapid
project turn-around the traditional schedule compression activities of overtime and shift work are
suggested for small projects.

Start-Up & Operations

Involving operators in the commissioning phase was the only reference made to this phase
of the project. However, in many cases this may be necessary in the planning phase. Generally
the concept of planning for start-up and operation of projects is ignored in the literature.

People
Table 2.3 provided an interesting perspective on the thinking style or traits of multiple
project managers compared to others types of managers.

Table 2.3 Adaptors vs. Innovators (Tullett 1996)

High Adaptors High Innovators
Are more concerned with improving the Are more concerned with generating
efficiency of the current system possibilities for a future system
Are characterized by precision, reliability, Are seen as undisciplined, thinking,
conformity, methodical ness, prudence tangentially, approaching tasks from
unusual angles
Seek solutions to problems in tried and Resolve problems by redefining them,
understood ways which are acceptable to question basic assumptions and frequently
most people offer novel solutions which are not
immediately acceptable to most people
Produce a few relevant, safe ideas for Produce many ideas including those seen as
immediate implementation initially as irrelevant, unsound and risky
Prefer stable, structured, and predictable Prefer less structured and often changing
working environments working environments, easily bored with
routine
Rarely challenge rules, maintain group Often challenge rules, are catalysts to
stability and cohesion settled groups, and so can be perceived as
disruptive and abrasive

People tend to exhibit elements of both columns, so tendencies toward one or the other are used
to create the overall characterization. Tullett hypothesized that managers of multiple projects
would have a more innovative thinking style due to their need to work across multiple functional
boundaries. The research evaluated responses from 203 multiple project managers and 559
managers in general. Managers in general average score was 97.9 and multiple project managers

12
scored 108.2. This indicated that the average manager of multiple projects is inclined to be more
innovative in their thinking style. The innovative style of thinking is beneficial for many
management responsibilities such as:
• Discussion of proposals with (potential) project sponsors
• Working relationship with project sponsors
• Assembling and leading project teams
• Planning and controlling projects
• Solving problems during different phases of projects

No other articles were found that effectively added to the understanding of people issues, except
that they are a limited resource, on small projects.

Organization
Griffith and Headley(1995) note that two levels of organization exist. The first level is the
organization of the overall small works management process and the second is the management of
the individual small works. Many articles produced on management of small projects focus only
on the individual small project and often from a small contractor perspective. However, this
research focuses on small projects that are elements of a larger program often executed within
alliance or partnered agreements. These concepts are not much different than large project
alliances and partnering systems.

Project Processes
Will and Stewart (1991) highlight the relative improvements achieved in small project
management. “Those principles and techniques known as project management have recently been
applied to small oil and gas construction projects and the results have been observed in the
efficiency with which such projects are completed.” They give a rather bleak image of the
construction process for small projects prior to the use of the management techniques: design
being completed as installation progressed, completion dates difficult to track or not tracked and
lack of time control, costs were difficult to track and control – all were sacrificed in the interest of
saving time. The economics of many industries have changed to demand more up-front planning
for small projects and to introduce appropriate project controls. The breakdown for project
development is a 5-step process:
1. Conceptual
2. Feasibility+/- 30% cost estimate phase
3. Detail Design +/- 10%
4. Material Procurement
5. Construction/Start-up
Work involved in detail design could account for 30-50% of the man-hours required for
the total project. The author’s case study indicates they ‘leveraged’ their engineering staff by
hiring a contractor to perform a portion of the detailed design. Periodic and frequent updates are
needed during the design phase. In the case study all parties participated in design review.

Platje et. al. ( 1994) focus on the project and planning cycles for projects and portfolios of
projects. Portfolios are described as a group of projects that have interdependent objective and
use common resource pools (departments or expertise). A program, as defined by others in the
article, was described as a set of projects that are managed in a coordinated way to deliver
benefits, which would not be possible if the projects were managed independently. Portfolio

13
management can also be applied as a process where same personnel, within segments of a facility,
usually execute the projects, although the projects are not necessarily packaged together,

The portfolio management team according to Platje and Seidel (consisting of project
leaders and department heads) is jointly responsible for:
• Construction of feasible portfolios (satisfying the priorities of the projects within the
boundaries set by management)
• The tradeoff (by negotiation) of (often conflicting) interests of the participants
• The communication between management, project leaders and department heads

The frequency of the portfolio planning cycle is a function of the stability in the portfolio content
and process. When management frequently changes priorities, new projects are added or deleted
regularly, or the individual project plans often change, and the portfolio content is subject to
frequent variations. When individual project plans are mostly executed according to the plan, few
bottlenecks will occur in the execution. When projects are frequently delayed or resource
requirements change during the execution, more frequent portfolio planning is required to resolve
bottlenecks.

Common Project Management Procedures

Payne and Turner (1999) list four advantages for a common management approach to all
projects, regardless of type, size or resource requirements.
1. A consistent reporting mechanism can provide comparable progress reports across all
projects
2. Resource requirements can be calculated consistently, facilitating management of capacity
constraints
3. People can move between projects without having to relearn the management approach
4. Small projects can be used as a training ground for future managers of large projects.

In many small project environments, the non-homogeneous mix of projects lends

additional complexity to the process. Payne and Turner conducted a survey that highlighted the
fact that a common procedure for all projects, regardless of type, size and other factors does not
improve the likelihood of success. Tailoring project management procedures to the size of a
project does not reduce the chance of success; it probably increases it. Another way to view this
is that applying the same procedures across all projects increases the risk of failure. They go on
to evaluate several contributing factors that are summarized as:
• Small projects cannot bear the burden (bureaucracy) of procedures designed for larger projects
• In management of large projects emphasis is on the complex sequence of activities, balancing
resources across activities within the control of the project. Major projects, although they
could be viewed as multiple smaller projects, may represent a single failure capable of sinking
the parent organization or severely damage the organization.

The solution proposed was to develop a strategic plan for every project based on a
common approach that allows different approaches to the level of detail or tactical level. The
three levels of planning are as follows:

Level 1 – Integrative A Project Definition Report will be developed for all projects, based
on a common model. This will ensure all projects are defined in a

14
 common way, giving a common basis for comparison and
prioritization
Level 2- Strategic Develop Milestone Plan and Project Responsibility Chart for each
project component. Enables consistent approach to assignment of
resources and responsibilities and for tracking and comparing progress

Level 3 – Tactical For small projects there may be no further level of planning. For
engineering construction and building projects the lower levels will be
developed in some detail at an early stage, based on known activities
to be performed.

Project Controls
Griffith and Headley (1998) identify two levels of control necessary in small projects.
The first level of control is at the overall small works management and the second is the
individual project. This is an important point to differentiate for readers. Their research
indicated that static control systems are often used for small projects. Static controls are based on
procedural rules and regulations. However, due to the nature of small projects, static controls
often fail to provide any measure of control because they are not sensitive to changes that affect
small projects. Malwitz (1986) noted that in controlling costs for a small project, traditional
accounting systems are too slow to react in time to exercise any form of cost control.

Contracting
Harding does not recommend single source EPC for retrofit projects. Due to the large
number of interfaces needed, Harding claims you lose a little bit of control with this approach.
The owner does gain a single point of responsibility and if an engineering constructor is procured
with contract incentives, there may be a benefit from the practice. Griffith and Headley (1995)
state that some organizations were outsourcing the small works procurement function to
consultants. This was the only reference to this practice encountered in the literature review.

Project Success Factors

In addition to reviewing the literature for factors related to project execution, key project
success factors presented another area for review. Previous research on project success factors
was reviewed for both large and small projects. Since few authors specifically identified what
size projects were involved in their work, the assumption was that these factors were developed
from a wide range of projects and would be applicable to small and large projects. Much of the
research was conducted in the early 1980’s with a general resurgence in interest in the late 1990’s
into 2000. The literature review reveals how much has been accomplished in the area of
measuring or evaluation of the success of a construction project. Since it is generally accepted
that budget, schedule, and quality are the major concerns for a construction project, this section of
the literature review was particularly interested in identifying the measurements and the critical
factors or indicators. The measures and the indicators or the factors of project success have the
general accepted meaning although they may change depending on who is making the evaluation,
which phase of project is being evaluated, and what baseline values are being used to make the
assessment.

15
Measures of Project Success
Many researchers have investigated the measurement of project success. Key findings
from a wide range of articles are presented in a more or less chronological order. Some agreement
exists among the researchers, but clearly there are many interpretations that can be applied to
measures of success.
Murphy, Baker, Fisher (1974) measured success using six items:
1. All things considered, the project was a success,
2. Parent organization satisfaction,
3. Client organization satisfaction,
4. Ultimate user satisfaction,
5. Project team satisfaction, and
6. To what extent did end results fulfill technical performance or mission.
The authors further stated that measuring success is a multi-dimensional concept with several
measures that are both objective and subjective in nature.

Cleland (1986) examines project success from the owner's viewpoint and states that
success is meaningful only if considered (1) the degree to which the project's technical
performance objective was attained on time and within budget, and (2) the contribution that the
project made to the strategic mission of the enterprise. Measuring the success of a project
includes an ongoing assessment of how the project is perceived by parties (project team members,
subcontractors, suppliers, government agencies, customers, and other relevant groups). One
party's view of a project success can differ from another party's view of success.

Anton de Wit (1986) pointed out that a project is considered an overall success if it meets
the technical performance specification and/or mission to be performed, and if there is a high
level of satisfaction concerning the project outcome among key people in the parent organization,
key people in the project team, and key users or clientele of the project effort. Measuring success
is complex and that a project is hardly ever a disaster or failure for all stakeholders during all
phases in the life cycle. Therefore, a project can be a success for one party and a disaster for
another. Success is also time dependent. A project may be perceived a Success one day and a
failure the next.

Ashley et. al. (1987) investigated that success was defined as results much better than
expected or normally observed in terms of cost, schedule, quality, safety, and participant
satisfaction. The research showed that there were six criteria used to measure construction
project success:
• Budget performance,
• Schedule performance,
• Client satisfaction,
• Functionality,
• Contractor satisfaction,
• Project manager / team satisfaction.

Sanvido et.al., (1992) stated that success for a given project participant is defined as the
degree to which project goals and expectations are met. These goals and expectations may
include technical, financial, educational, social, and professional aspects. These expectations may

16
be different for many project participants.

McCoy (1986) measured success using an integrated project baseline approach, which is
established that success in the early phases of the project was due to monitoring project cost,
schedule and technical performance.

Might and Fischer (1985) employed six distinct measures of success. These are:
• An overall subjective measure of success by the respondent,
• A measure of cost over/underrun as a percentage of the initial estimate,
• A measure of schedule over/underrun as a percentage of the initial estimate,
• A subjective assessment of the technical success relative to the initial plan,
• A subjective assessment of the technical success relative to other projects in the firm,
and
• The subjective assessment of the technical success measured in terms of the technical
problem identification process (i.e. a successful project is one that requires little or no
crisis management while meeting cost and schedule goals).

Naoum (1994) used a theoretical framework to assist in comparing project performance

and concluded that to achieve project success, the parties need to match the various organizational
forms to the client's characteristics, criteria, and priorities with respect to time, cost, and quality.
Naoum defined 10 factors to measure project performance as follows:
• Preconstruction time,
• Construction time,
• Total time,
• Speed of construction,
• Unit cost of building,
• Time overrun,
• Cost overrun,
• Client’s satisfaction with time,
• Client’s satisfaction with cost, and
• Client’s satisfaction with quality.

A review of the literature shows that different researchers use different measures although
these different measures often contain similar general concepts for project success. This portion
of the review did not yield any construction-related articles using specific measures for small
project success.

Factors Related to Success

Many articles have been written related to factors showing construction project successful.
Murphy, Baker, and Fisher (1974) identify several determinants of project success. The study
was designed to include as many variables as possible that are important for project effectiveness.
Several individual variables were identified as strongly correlated to project success, which are:
• Project team sense of mission,
• Project team spirit,
• Project team goal commitment,
• Project team capability,

17
 • Project manager's satisfaction with planning and control, and
• Unity between project manager and client contact.

Might (1985) also analyzed, in his research, that if project size is a factor affecting the
utility of various project management systems by categorizing the projects into high and low cost
grouping by which as much differentiation as possible was assured and the smallest and the
largest dollar value projects could be directly compared. Projects costing $2,000,000 or less were
classified as small projects. Regression analysis, which had the six criteria of success as the
dependent variables and the project management control techniques as independent variables,
were run for the large and small project data, separately, and levels of statistical significance
associated with the regression coefficients are presented. Might concluded that the analysis did
not yield the dramatic distinctions between large and small projects that many observers would
believe exist. However, the analysis suggested (1) that there might be, in fact, some differences
between large and small projects with control systems, apparently having considerably more
influence (both positive and negative) on project success in large projects than is the case with
smaller projects, (2) that the use of technical monitoring as a project management control system
stands out from among all of rest in the uniformly strongly negative association between its use
and overall project success and that only large projects can afford tight technical control.

Jolivet and Batignolles (1986) identify a list of 17 simple criteria often found in successful
construction projects that are nonexistent in unsuccessful projects. These success factors are:
• A project director is nominated,
• The project is subdivided,
• The project organization is determined by the project director,
• The objectives are established and made known,
• Activity is in accordance with written procedures,
• Contract management,
• Program management,
• Cost management,
• Quality management,
• Administrative and financial management,
• Personnel management,
• Design management,
• Purchasing and subcontract management,
• Construction management,
• Shutdown procedures,
• Management of project "know-how", and
• Documentation.

Sanvido et. al. (1992) stated that success on a project means that certain expectations for a
given participant were met, whether owner, planner, engineer, contractor, or operator. The four
most critical success factors derived from the Integrated Building Process Model are:
• A well-organized, cohesive facility team to manage, plan, design, construct, and
operate the facility,
• A series of contracts that allows and encourages the various specialists to behave as a
team without conflicts of interest and differing goals,

18
 • Experience in the management, planning, design, construction, and operations of
similar facilities, and
• Timely, valuable optimization information from the owner, user, designer, contractor,
and operator in the planning and design phases of the facility.

Conley and Gregory (1999) developed a concept for partnering for small construction
projects and stated that the reduction in schedule growth and claims cost along with the increase
in value engineering savings support the use of partnering concepts in projects of all sizes and
since small construction projects do not always have sufficient funding to enable them to organize
a formal partnering effort, with paid facilitators, an informal partnering option is suggested. The
use of informal partnering on small construction projects would be more appropriate for projects
that have duration of at least 6 months and where schedule growth is a major concern of the
owner.

Chua, Kog, and Loh (2000) distinguished the critical success factors for different project
objectives of budget, schedule, and quality using the analytic hierarchy process. These
researchers determined the relative importance of 67 success-related factors, which were grouped
under four main aspects:
• Project characteristics,
• Contractual arrangements,
• Project participants, and
• Interactive process.
The top ten overall ranking factors are:
• Plans and specifications,
• Constructability,
• Project management commitment and involvement,
• Realistic obligations/clear objectives,
• Project management competency,
• Contractual motivation or incentive,
• Site inspections,
• Construction control meetings,
• Formal communication (construction), and
• Economic risks.
However, each set of critical success factors differs depending on the project objective. The top
ten factors for budget performance are:
• Plans and specifications,
• Constructability,
• Economic risks,
• Realistic obligations or clear objectives,
• Project management competency,
• Funding,
• Budget update,
• Project management commitment and involvement,
• Contractual motivation or incentives, and
• Risk identification and allocation.
The top ten factors for schedule performance are:

19
 • Plans and specifications,
• Constructability,
• Project management commitment and involvement,
• Project management competency,
• Contractual motivation or incentives,
• Realistic obligations or clear objectives,
• Schedule update,
• Construction control meetings,
• Capability of contractor key person, and
• Pioneering status.
The top ten factors for quality performance are:
• Plans and specifications,
• Constructability,
• Site inspections,
• Pm commitment and involvement,
• Realistic obligations or clear objectives,
• Pm competency,
• Construction control meetings,
• Formal communication (construction),
• Capability of contractor key person, and
• Contractual motivation or incentives, and design control meeting.

Cheng, Li, and Love (2000) established a partnering framework to identify the critical
success factors which can improve the productivity and performance of construction projects.
These factors are:
• Effective communication,
• Conflict resolution,
• Adequate resources,
• Management support,
• Mutual trust,
• Long-term commitment,
• Coordination, and creativity.

The review of the literature yielded few construction-related articles focusing on success
factors focused on small project success. Some work has also been done on identifying models of
the factors to predict success.

Models of Success
Murphy, Baker and Fisher (1974) developed a model for project success using regression
techniques. A stepwise regression analysis showed that successful project outcomes are based on
multiple factors rather than simply caused. More importantly the work shows that many of the
important factors lie within the control of those managing the project. The seven determining
factors on the Perceived Success of Project model are:
• Coordination and relations,
• Adequacy of project structure and control,
• Project uniqueness, importance and public exposure,

20
 • Success criteria clarity and consensus,
• Competitive and budgetary pressure,
• Initial over optimism and conceptual difficulty, and
• Internal capabilities buildup.

Pinto and Slevin (1988) investigated modeling techniques to identify important success
factors depending on the project phase. These researchers determined that the critical factors are
not of equal and stable importance over the life of the project--different sets of these factors
become more critical to project success at different phases in the project life cycle. Subjective
data was collected from 418 respondents on a series of 72 questions covering the list of 14
success factors. A stepwise regression analysis was used to identify key factors for each phase of
the project life cycle. The cycles used in the analysis were: (1) Conceptual, (2) Planning, (3)
Execution, and (4) Termination.

Jaselskis and Ashley (1988) developed a predictive discrete choice model for achieving
outstanding project performance which included better scheduling performance, and better budget
performance by four categories: project manager, project team (PM education level, PM technical
experience, PM subordinates), project team (team turnover), planning (constructability), and
controls (budget updates, control meetings during construction, controls meeting during design,
and control system cost).

Griffith (1999) designed and developed an index to measure the success of industrial
project execution, which is comprised of four variables: budget achievement, schedule
achievement, design capacity, and plant utilization. The Success Index Equation yields results
ranging from 1(completely failure) to 5 (complete success), which can be used to compare
success of a wide range of projects with different budgets, schedules, and products. An index
value of 3 or higher generally, but not always, indicates that met or exceeded all four of the
success variable goals.

With the exception of Jaselskis (1988) the models are generally not predictive in character
and serve to validate some of the same factors identified in the earlier section on project success
factors.

21
 Small Projects Definition

A consensus agreement on the definition of a small project is difficult to achieve. One

view into defining small projects was explained by Griffith and Headley (1998) as follows:

1. Cost of administration expressed as a proportion of the work itself can be much greater
than larger projects.
2. Complexity of a typical (building works environment) is much lower
3. Short duration (one to three months)
4. Limited quantities of materials and labor but may be specialist in nature
5. Uncertainty higher – often unspecified or tentatively specified
6. Use limited formal documentation
7. Some small works have considerable diversity in size, value and complexity and are
procured and managed using formal systems
8. They typically occur in active environments – requiring minimal disruption and hazard
exposure

The complexity factor as addressed above relates to the technology of the process. The authors
were examining the small project process for building projects. Otherwise the description fits the
character of projects evaluated in this research very well. The most significant element of the
definition above is that no fixed dollar amount has been artificially attached to the definition.
However, as stated in the objectives of the study small projects have adopted a cost cut-off
definition.

Literature Review Conclusion

The approach to define small projects by Griffith and Headley is beneficial to describing the key
differences of large and small projects. They also noted in their work that there is a growing
realization among building owners and users that the controllable cost element (small capital
projects) can represent an important ‘profit opportunity.’ “A more effective and efficient small
works procurement policy represents one area of the controllable costs which can assist an
organization in the drive to optimal use of the property estate.” This realization is the driving
force for continuous improvement of small project management processes and procedures.

Struckenbruck (1986) pointed out that measuring success may be quite complex due to the
many different perspectives of the project so that simply comparing a project's accomplishments
with its planned goals and objectives can be deceptive. Each project party has very different
criteria for project success, depending on how they measure success, what they are evaluating,
and when the evaluation takes place. However, this review points out that the following are
common elements of project success:

• Project time or schedule completion

• Financial success based on project cost or budget
• Customer satisfaction (varies depending on viewpoint)
• Project functionality (meets technical specification)

22
These can be achieved by:
• Effective formal and informal communications (clear objectives and obligations)
• Capability of project management (competency, commitment and involvement)
• Design and construction control meetings (scope control, schedule updates, budget
updates)
• Performing constructability reviews
• Proper evaluation and allocation of risks
• Long term commitment and mutual trust
• Project checklists similar to that proposed by Harding

23
 Chapter 3 Data Collection Summary
Survey Development
Data collection for the research project was designed for two stages. The first stage was
to develop a general questionnaire to be distributed to small project managers. The research
team was instrumental in developing a series of questions in all areas of project management that
would have some significance to the execution of a valid fact finding questionnaire. A roster of
the research team is provided in Appendix A. The preliminary questionnaire was then pilot
tested by the members of the research team team. The completion time ranged from two to three
hours, but required the pilot test respondents to assume fairly gross estimates of some requested
numerical data, since they did not have access to data sources when filling completing the
questionnaire. However, after modifications from the pilot test, it was felt that the extensive
survey was “on target” to capture the data the research team was interested in acquiring. A copy
of the final survey is included in Appendix B of this report.
The CII benchmarking survey was reviewed in the development of the team’s
questionnaire. However, many of the details of the benchmarking survey were not considered
applicable to the information desired in the research.

Survey and Interview Process

Overall 36 surveys were entered into the project database. However, 43 interviews were
conducted in collecting data summarized in the following chapter. The interviews were
conducted at the respondent’s office location. However three interviews were conducted by
telephone due to schedule difficulties or preference of the respondent. Some surveys represent an
aggregate response from several persons within an organization who had small project
responsibilities and they collaborated on responding to the document. Some interviews were
conducted with organizations promising the survey at the time of the interview. However, these
surveys were usually not returned. Additional contacts (voicemail and e-mail) generally did not
result in return of the requested data. As a result, the response rate falls to as low as 12 responses
for some questions. Primarily these were questions related to specific data requests. This was
due to either a lack of desire to respond or the respondent’s organization did not track the
requested information and, therefore, it was not easily obtainable.

Table 3.1 Survey and Interview Count

Content No. Notes

Initial Database 59
No interview conducted 14 Conflicts: 6; Cancellations: 8
Survey Only (no interview) 2 Survey was returned but no interview
scheduled due to schedule conflicts
Total Interviews Conducted 43 59-14-2 = 43
Interviews combined in surveys 9 Some interviews were combined to
complete a single survey
Total Surveys Entered Into 36 43-9 = 34 surveys from interviews plus
Database 2 surveys submitted without interviews

24
The roles in Table 3.2 represent the function of the person who responded to the survey. The
Corporate line represents how they viewed the primary function of their company. In the
following sections classifications are based on how the respondent viewed their role or function
and not their corporate function. This is necessary to maintain consistency with a number of
owner respondents who maintain an in-house design function. In some cases this was a limited
function but some retain complete design staff for projects.

Table 3.2 Demographic Distribution of Surveys

Function or Role
Category Owner Engineering Constructor
Respondent Role 13 17 6
Corporate Function 21 8 7

Survey Summary

The survey was organized using a preliminary draft of knowledge areas identified by the
Construction Industry Institute. This organization provided a convenient mechanism for
preparing the general survey and organizing the responses.

Front End Planning

1. Due to the short duration of most small projects how would you compare detailed planning
efforts with those conducted for large projects?
The majority of respondents felt that small capital projects have less detailed planning
effort than large projects by a 3:1 margin (n=33). Little detail was provided to support the
positions taken.

2. Describe the logistics challenges that are different for small projects vs. large projects
planning in your work environment. The position taken that less detailed planning is conducted
for a small project is supported by respondent descriptions of the logistics challenges within
individual work environments. The following list is a rank-order listing of the key logistics
challenges provided for small projects.
• Shortened or compressed time frame for planning and executing project
• Reduced front-end planning, faster turn around for scope and concept
• Information flow and communication needs - same groups involved over a wider range of
projects
• Project management infrastructure
• Less formal process overall
• Smaller and more flexible project team
• Less functional support from management vs. larger projects
• Resource sharing needed

25
Nearly all respondents feel that there are differences in project planning, but few differences exist
in the deliverables from the planning process for small vs. large projects. The front end planning
for owner organizations produces a funding authorization; either for the entire project, or
depending on the number of authorization steps, at least an authorization to develop the final
project documents would result from initial stages. Final project funding, depending on the
owner, may be reserved for a final approval review and will often require that the small projects
clear appropriate financial hurdle rates. Some owner organizations preferred a more streamlined
approach to the process. They would authorize funding as soon as possible to include both
design and construction costs. From engineering and contractor perspectives the process results
in scope statements, preliminary schedules, preliminary estimates and feasibility design, if
needed. Many small capital projects are in-kind replacements or upgrades of existing systems
that require little engineering from the standpoint of original design. More information on this
was obtained during the interview process and a discussion of the project process is provided in
Chapter 4.

3. How is risk management handled differently for small projects when compared to large
projects?
Risk management is not different in an overall context for small and large projects.
However, a great deal of diversity exists in examining individual risk classifications. The
questionnaire respondents were asked to rate risks as being the same or different for small vs.
large projects. The number of responses varies within each question. Not all participants
responded to all the categories.

Consider the following risk classifications. Is the risk that each represents the same or
different for small capital projects compared to large capital projects?

Table 3.3 Risk Comparison Small vs. Large Projects

Risk Category Same Different Key difference factors
Engineering 9 11
Construction 13 7
Procurement 11 10 More site based procurement
Performance 11 8 Better performance than large projects
Regulatory Requirements 16 9
Health/Safety 18 1
Economic 9 12
Contractual 12 6
Environment 17 3
Political/public 9 10
Other - - None provided

Health/Safety and Environment categories were nearly unanimous for the risks being the same
for large and small projects. In the case of health and safety the dissenting vote indicated the risk
of death was highest for large projects. Engineering risk was thought to be somewhat higher by
some due to the shortened turnover time from project inception to completion. Inadequate design
time was considered to be a higher risk. This was balanced with general comments to the effect

26
that many of the projects did not involve highly original designs, mostly considerations for in-
kind replacements. Construction differences were identified, as higher use of formal process
audits for large projects. The deliverables were thought to be more easily defined for a small
project. Others felt that construction risk was higher due to projects being more difficult to define
and in some cases more difficult due to higher incident of actual site conditions varying from
initial planning.

4. In project planning, a contingency is often included in budget and time estimates. Is there
any difference in contingency for small projects?
The respondents were split on whether or not there is a difference. Fourteen of 31
respondents said they felt there was a difference. The differences were attributed to quick
execution time frame with less up front planning time available. Thus, the reduced planning and
engineering time in the project required higher contingency allocations.
Contingency allocations for small projects, where provided, were generally higher than
contingencies for large projects. Small projects were often given 2 to 5% higher contingency
allocations than large projects. The rationale provided for distributing more contingency on the
smaller projects included the following:
• Less detail in engineering - more possibility for problems
• Small project errors or omissions are magnified when viewed on a percentage basis. A
$10K error on $100K project is 10%, but only 0.1% for a $10MM project
• Large projects can pool contingency and distribute where needed - small project pool
allocations result in projects being cancelled when overruns occur.
One respondent very pointedly said their view of contingency was that it represents 'a reserve
amount to finish the design once the project is released to construction.’ This clearly highlights
problems associated with the compressed time cycle discussed above in the front end planning
process and design issues below.

5. Are specialized project checklists or expedited review processes used for small projects?
Specialized project checklists for the review process are widely used, 20 of 34
respondents to this question have or use specialized checklists. Of the 20 currently using some
form of expedited checklists, only 7 were willing to share a copy of their forms. The checklists
were often a condensed version of the information required for generating another formal
document. The checklists were commonly viewed as reminder lists so major elements would not
be forgotten in planning and executing a project. Although it would be beneficial to reproduce
some of the checklists many of these documents were for limited distribution and the researcher
did not have permission to reproduce them. A general description of the checklist contents can
be provided.

Project Definition Checklists - a document developed to assure the project is meeting the
requirements for developing the scope of the project. The project definition document developed
from the checklist forms the basic reference for the scope of the work. Requires development of
basic project objectives (customer defined requirements), schedule requirements, principal
activities required, impact of activities on services or utilities, impact on existing operations and
facilities, major equipment involved, and some estimate of the project's urgency or priority.

27
 Project Definition Rating Index a Construction Industry Institute tool for measuring the
degree of scope development on industrial projects. Permits the project team to rate the level of
scope development on a project prior to requesting authorization of funding.

Business Case Checklists are outlines of primary sections needed (need is based on
company specific requirements) for describing the basic need of the project. Some lists were
geared toward identifying priority projects. Value added analysis, internal rate of return hurdle
rates, payback periods, and other financial justifications outlined.

Engineering Cost Estimate Checklist asks a series of questions regarding issues that
impact the engineering cost estimate and generally covers three main areas for each project
discipline (mechanical, electrical, civil, and etc.) on existing site conditions, code issues, and
coordination issues.

Project Delivery Strategy Guideline is not a checklist in a strict sense. It is more of a

guideline or outline to a project summary document that describes scope, environmental, safety
and health issues, schedule, design, commissioning and procurement requirements. In addition
to these project related elements the guideline also describes considerations for resources,
construction requirements, communications requirements, start-up and project close out.

Project Initiation Checklist is an expanded outline that concisely documents all the
project details. General project information includes elements like client name, client
representative, type of contract, date of authorization to proceed and other general data
requirements. The scope of work is broken down into concise definitions including performance
tests and guarantees. Other sections cover client approval requirements for various elements of
the design, procurement and construction process, correspondence distribution, estimating and
purchasing roles and responsibilities, general engineering and construction requirements to name
some of the other sections.

Design

6. Is a construction representative involved during the design of the project?

The responses to the design section show that constructability, or at least construction
representation, is widely used during the small project design process. 24 respondents use some
form of constructability as opposed to 8 responses indicating that a construction representative or
their input is not involved in the design phase.

7. What are the deliverables from the design process?

Design deliverables were consistent with large project design, although in a few cases it
was acknowledged that more cases of sketches and arm waving were used initially in the design
to assure the design moved as quickly as possible. Documentation of the constructed design
often followed. The deliverables listed included: process safety data, isometrics, schematics,
detail design, scope description, vendor data, equipment requirements, cost estimates and general
responses for plans and specifications.

28
8. What is the frequency of scheduled project team meetings during the design phase?
Design meetings tend to occur on a weekly basis, with others reporting meetings as
needed. In the interview portion of the data collection process, the majority had weekly meetings
scheduled, and supplemented the weekly meetings with smaller meetings to supplement the
weekly meeting. In many cases, other than project kick-off meetings, the weekly meetings were
typically used to document design progress on all active projects, not just one project’s design
progress.

9. What productivity measurements are tracked for small projects?

Major productivity elements tracked for design productivity were as follow:
• Cost budget vs. actual costs
• Schedule planned vs. actual
• Man-hours budget vs. expended
• %Engineering of Total Installed Cost (%TIC)
• % Materials vs. Labor
• Hours/task
• # Work packages released on time, # projects complete on time
• % Home office overhead
• % Rework
Several respondents questioned the overall value of these traditional measurements when they are
used and reported in the small project environment. They felt that many of these measurements
had little significance to the task. Several respondents clearly indicated that no such measures
were made or that they were of limited value. No benchmark performance factors were provided,
but evidence of these factors were noted during interview sessions.

Procurement
The questions prepared for procurement drew a diverse group of responses.

10. Who performs Procurement?

Owners, engineers, and contractors all have procurement specialists. So, when examining
who actually performs procurement, a statement that procurement responsibility would depend
on project requirements commonly clarified the responses. The survey data supports a
perspective where the engineers dominate procurement (process industry responses). The
contractors commonly purchased bulk materials and consumable materials, but could be key
members in procurement when the project conditions dictated.

11. Who typically performs expediting?

The expediting role is commonly a follow-on assignment to those involved in
procurement. Engineers again dominated the responses, but the pattern of responses was split
fairly evenly between the owner, engineering (design organization), and constructors. Sixteen
responses had multiple parties performing this function. The owner and engineer were most
dominant in the alliance and multiple party responses. Eighteen responses showed single source
responsibility. The engineers were the majority of these responses.

29
12. Whose paper is used for procurement?
This question was looking at a practice of using the owner’s purchasing systems to
purchase materials for construction. It is recognized that equipment items are often ordered by
the owner ahead of construction and would most likely be purchased using their internal system.
In other cases, because of preferred vendor arrangements, the constructors will order through the
owner’s system to take advantage of pricing agreements or delivery arrangements through the
owner’s receiving system. Twenty owner systems were used for purchasing, seven engineer’s
systems were used and only three constructor systems were used. Five reported all three were
involved in purchasing. The interview portion will attempt to clarify when or where alternative
arrangements for purchasing are used.

13. How is the vendor selection process different for small projects compared to large
projects?
When existing equipment is being changed out it was a common response for the owner
to select the vendor prior to final design. The equipment would be released to construction once a
contract was in place to permit the contractor to expedite equipment deliveries. In other time
constrained situations, the owner and designer would often be involved in equipment or vendor
selection and expediting process.

14. Do you use a bidding process for equipment supply?

More than half of the respondents indicated that procurement practices on small projects
were the same or very similar to large project procurement practices. Preferred vendors, supplier
alliances and compatibility with existing systems were indicated as practices somewhat unlike
large projects. Compatibility requirements were important where maintenance personnel have
been trained with specific equipment and hardware. Compatibility also considers existing
supplies of parts and spares. Plant standards often play an important role in this consideration. A
cost related observation was reported in discussion of the procurement process. Discounts were
typically less for small project procurement than for larger projects. With more reliance on
known suppliers, several respondents remarked that there is less of a competitive environment.
Bidding per se among a group of potential equipment suppliers is reduced due to existing
standards and plant considerations.

Specifications for procurement were predominately detailed specifications. Functional

specifications were listed with detailed specifications in almost half of the cases. The least
selected type of specification was the design-build specification. The discussion supporting these
choices was that small capital projects often required less or a lower level effort for design.

15. Are small project deliverables such as spares, training, and documentation included with
equipment?
Yes (23 of 31) documentation is a key deliverable. Spares and training were not
supported as much. Spares were likely available in existing supplies for many standard
equipment items and training was not needed in many cases do to familiarity with the equipment.

30
16. For small projects, what are the key deliverables in equipment contracts to ensure
functional, timely and lowest cost equipment?
Key deliverables (requirements) in equipment contracts to ensure functional, timely, and
lowest cost equipment could be grouped into two areas:
• Plant standards limiting the choice to known product and performance, stay with existing
vendors - fewer problems
• Specifications and vendor or shop drawings
• Drawing approvals

17. Do equipment vendors' delivery schedules for small projects require site visits, factor
acceptance tests, or restrictive payment schedules?
Only one respondent suggested that on-site inspections were important to the process.
However, most did perform inspections, particularly for items critical to the schedule or the
process. Most however would perform site visits in the same manner for large projects. A key
difference noted in regard to the inspections themselves was that they are often end-of-fabrication
inspections rather than staged or step inspections during the fabrication. Several respondents
indicated they limited vendor inspections to large projects.

18. For small projects, which project team members are included in the review of the
equipment vendor bids, contracts or negotiations?
Most of the respondents used a multiple party or team approval/selection review process.
Some of the differences may be due to semantics for titles:
• Design specialists (9)
• Project manager (7)
• Project engineer (7)
• Purchasing (3)
• Lead discipline engineer (2)
• Operations and maintenance were noted in a few surveys (2)

Most of the teams included both project managers or engineers and the design specialists or lead
designers. A single person did not usually perform vendor selection.
For equipment selection, 50% of the respondents indicated there was no difference in the
procurement process. The remaining responses suggested two differences in the process:
• More use of standing preferred vendor agreements established by plant procurement
• Process is oriented toward choices that are compatible with existing equipment (not
always the most cost effective choices for the equipment but considering spare
parts, training etc, often is the most logical choice).
Government procurement regulation limits procurement activities by project managers.
Contracting officers are the front line contact for contract relations and all contracts are procured
on a competitive basis. Design contracts can be procured under indefinite delivery contracts
where specific projects can be amended to the base contract without a competitive bid.

31
Construction
19. During execution of the work, is there an owner's representative on site?
The responses to this question suggest a more narrow definition might have been needed.
Fourteen reported a part-time owner’s representative on site, fifteen reported a full-time
representative, and two reported that the owner’s representative was not on site. The interview
process will be used to clarify responses to this question.

20. Does and in-house workforce complete small capital projects? What type of workforce is
typical for small projects? What type of workforce is typical for large projects?
In-house workforce capability was limited to a few organizations where the plant
workforce is unionized and construction craft representation is present within their maintenance
organization. In all, 10 respondents indicated they had a union environment and 16 responded as
either merit shop or non-union. Several of the union environment organizations had a contracts
review committee to determine if the in-plant union forces would perform small capital projects
work or if the work would be contracted out. For large capital projects the tendency leaned
toward non-union and merit shop more heavily (17) than union (7).

21. How is change managed for small projects?

Changes are a prevalent element in the fast track environment of small capital projects.
Effective management techniques are important to budget control. No unique or specialized
processes were identified. Many respondents indicated that they used the same procedures for all
projects.

22. What productivity measurements do you track for small projects?

Productivity measures were very diverse among the respondents (numbers in brackets
indicate the number of responses for each category):
• Milestones achieved (schedule) (5)
• Cost of quality and rework costs (4)
• Work hour expended vs. budgeted (4)
• Total cost (4)
• Unit rates (productivity) (3
• Unit rates (total cost) (2)
• Progress payment review process (2)
• Customer satisfaction (2)
• % time spent constructing (work sampling)
• Safety
• Engineering and home office expense %
• Installed quantities
• Earned value
Cost and schedule, traditional measures of work effectiveness, remain the more popular
measurement techniques for productivity on projects and were tracked by all organizations.
Tracking rework costs places a focus on how well the front-end processes were accomplished as
well as the contractor's effectiveness in executing the specifications. Productivity rates, work
sampling, and installed quantities were primarily of interest to contractors.

32
23. What is the frequency of scheduled project meetings during construction?
Coordination meetings during construction were predominately weekly. Since most contractors
and owners were engaged in multiple projects, weekly meetings were felt to be the most effective
process to exchange data and provide an update on progress status for all the projects. Although
weekly meetings was the predominate method, a significant number of the responses included
comments that supplemental meetings were held as often as daily for some projects.
Additionally, one respondent provided this insight to the importance of having effective meetings
to transfer information:
"Typical project durations are less than three months. A normal range for the actual
execution time would be in a range of 6 to 8 weeks. Project reviews once each week may
not be adequate for all cases. Emergency projects were not included in the study, but
these do occur and the meetings are nearly continuous over the span of the emergency and
the emergency project must be inserted on top of the existing project workload. In some
cases a cycle occurs where meetings are weekly, up to the point in time where daily
meetings are needed to ensure proper completion, then back to weekly until the next
project deadline is challenged."

No specific pattern of meetings for project progress was noted in the responses. Monthly status
reports tended to be an overall program of projects review, which would include design, while
weekly meetings were more specific to progressing the work under construction.

24. How is production downtime planned for small projects?

Much of the influence on meetings in the previous paragraph is the result of a primary
difference between small capital projects and large capital projects. On large projects there is
one single schedule with multiple elements coordinated to the one completion event and
everything is coordinate to that date. In small projects the project team must address the
operating facility needs and modify construction planning to address their requirements so there
are multiple completion events dictated by various needs and constraints. All of the small
projects in the process industry environment are subject to schedules driven by plant outages or
turnarounds that have fluctuating schedules. In effect, when a project occurs is a decision by
production or plant operations personnel not the construction team per se. Even in many public-
contracting situations, work schedules are modified to address owner demands. For example:
construction projects may need to work evenings to not disturb the normal events and activities
in a courtroom.

25. Do the contractors for small projects also perform maintenance work at the same location
or plant? Do they maintain separate workforces for small capital projects and maintenance
work? Do they track project and maintenance work separately?
In 24 responses the contractors were performing maintenance work along with small
capital projects. In other instances, the contractors were aiding the owner by scheduling
maintenance in conjunction with or in addition to small capital projects. The contractors who
perform both functions do not typically maintain separate workforces, and in fact use the
combined maintenance - small capital programs to help them level their workforce requirements.
Due to financial reporting requirements, owners do require this work to be tracked separately.
Contractors on the other hand do not need to maintain separate records, unless they are interested

33
in performing cost control functions on more than a total cost basis. Since many of these
contracts were established as reimbursable contracts, assigning maintenance and small capital
work to the same contractor was viewed as cost effective for both parties.

Start-up and Operations

26. Who prepares the master plan for commissioning projects? How is this different from
large projects?
Master planning for commissioning is unlike major project where stand-alone teams are often
created to ensure proper commissioning and start-up. In small capital projects there is much less
formality, and in some cases the respondents' felt that the informality reduced the level of
effective documentation. Small capital project start-up plans are often perfunctory because the
plant operations personnel are often familiar with the equipment and systems purchased and
existing documentation will support them adequately.

27. Who prepares and executes small project commissioning documents?

Small project commissioning documents, when prepared, are generally prepared by the owner or
some element within the owner's team. Responses to responsibility for preparing commissioning
documents included operations personnel (or owner) (15), owner's project engineer or operations
engineer (4), engineer or designer (4), contractor (1) and commissioning group (1). The primary
difference noted was that for small projects the documentation was less formal. The majority of
the responses indicated there were not many differences

28. Who owns the documents?

Document ownership belonged to the plant or the owner, depending on the response and
this was also consistent with large projects. Again, except for the volume of work, no differences
were noted.

29. Describe how small project closeout procedures are different from large projects.
Primary difference for the project closeout process was that there is significantly less
paperwork for an individual small capital project as compared to a single large project.
Otherwise no significant differences noted.

People
Selection of personnel for staffing small projects also generated a variety of responses
and comments in the survey.

30. Please describe how staffing decisions are made for small projects from design through
construction for your organization.

Staffing decisions in many regards follows traditional selection concepts of expertise

(Skill) and availability being more or less co-requisites to selection for project staffing. In this
respect there is no difference between large and small project staffing. Availability is actually
two distinctly different questions; 1) are they available for the site location and 2) if they are
already on site, does their workload permit adding an additional project?

34
 Owner representatives have the additional requirement or expectation that they have a
reasonable amount of experience within the plant or in similar process facilities. When
considering replacements for owner personnel, many responded they would be looking at
engineering alliance personnel or in some cases contractor personnel they have on site as a
possible source of future plant representatives.
Designers also look at expertise and availability as the primary selection criteria. Their
main difficulty is in obtaining the wide variation of skills needed to execute projects in the small
capital projects environment where workload swings between design disciplines can be
significant in a short time period. They cannot maintain a full service staff on side, so they often
rely on a pool of available talent in the home office to fill in gaps for design on a project
temporary basis. Staffing from a pool of talent is advantageous where the project manager can
identify those with better skills for small projects. An important attribute noted was selection of
designers who enjoyed having more decision-making capability.
Depending on the project location, availability of temporary engineering assistance is an
issue. In some areas of the country unemployment rates are very low and temporary engineering
personnel are difficult to obtain. In other areas, if the industrial base is not growing, there is a
supply of skilled designers available for use at short notice. This situation can change rapidly
depending on owner decisions to upgrade or expand plants – creating a longer-term large project
assignment. Therefore, geographic location and industry specific economics are elements
somewhat peculiar to designer availability. One response indicated that the task was to use the
minimum skill rate necessary to competently perform the work. A matrix formulation for site
design services was fairly common within the design group. Any one designer could be working
for several project engineers responsible for different areas of a plant.
Contractors face similar choices. However, since many contractors provide additional
site services on maintenance contracts or large capital projects, their ability to level resource
requirements may not be as severe compared to those whose primary site exposure is small
capital projects alone.
Owners are acutely aware, in most cases, of the problems facing their design firms and
constructors. In some cases they are willing to provide a minimum funding level to ‘buy out’ or
support a minimum core team of designers on site at all times.

31. What is your ratio of project staff to project TIC (#staff personnel/$1,000,000)
The ratio of project staff to project TIC drew a wide range of responses, several of which
appear to have included trades in addition to supervisory staff. The follow-up question on ratio
of supervision to labor hours provides a clearer indication of the management difficulties in small
project.

32. Please provide an estimate of the ratio of supervision work hours to labor hours.
After removal of several outliers, the average supervision to labor percentage on small
projects was 15.8% (n=14) and for large projects 12.25% (n=14) which suggests that nearly 30%
more supervision is required on small projects. The number of responses to the numerical
portion of this question was quite small which reduces some of the statistical reliability of the
response, but many interviewees would not provide additional data when requested.

35
33. What steps are taken to integrate small project teams? What percent of small projects
have formal team building planned?
Team integration at sites with long-term relationships among the parties was almost
uniformly answered from "none" to "very little required," since the working relationships have
already been worked out. In newly forming relationships the integration of the team had higher
priority and more formal team-building activities. In public sector responses one internal view
was that within the agency, no integration was needed since their transition from functional
organization to a team based system. In another response, integration was a contractor’s issue,
not the owner’s. Those that did report some form of team integration activity; the percentage of
contracts ran from 100% to 3%. The 100% response was based on formal kick-off meetings for
all projects. A general interpretation of the written responses would suggest that integration of
project teams is a low priority on active long-term contracts and not issue that generates a great
amount of support.

34. Is the team-building process different for small project teams?

With respect to teambuilding activities 17 of 22 respondents to this question indicated
they have some form of team building activities on their projects. The differences between small
and large project teams were noted as follows:
• Small project teams tend to stay together. Small projects are a nearly continuous stream
of projects where large projects disband once the project is completed and move on to the
next major project.
• Work together to build relationships vs. large projects that have organized team building
activities
• Small project teams work on a continuous stream of projects, no project start-stop, and
have better exposure to each other in a wide variety of situations
In evaluating if team building is as important for small project teams as it is for large project
teams; 19 respondents felt is was as important and only 4 did not

35. Do you have specific qualification criteria for small project team leadership?
Specific small team leadership criteria were limited. Only 4 out of 19 respondents to this
question indicated there were specific criteria. Commentary to this question yielded the
following points:
• Must be able to walk on water
• Must have a multidiscipline background
• Experience with small projects important
• Knowledge of an operations area important (owner)
• Must be more organized and be able to start/stop projects at a moment’s notice
• Deals with people a lot more
• Must be detail oriented

36. Do you maintain a separate incentive structure for personnel on small projects?
There were a few contract-based incentives reported where the design organization or
construction organization could achieve a bonus, but no other personnel incentives for small
project work were reported.

36
37. Do small project personnel have a career path with opportunities similar to other project
managers?
Career path availability similar to other project managers was affirmed by 19 of 29
respondents to this question. Clearly the contractors were most likely to have successful career
paths from small projects. Several comments to support their position was that they were
measured more on performance and provided they performed well, promotions and salary
increases were likely. In contrast, only 7 of the 12 responding engineering firms felt a career path
was possible in the small projects arena. This was fairly close to the 6 of 10 positive responses
from owner organizations.

38. Do you use personality profile or other standardized testing for identifying characteristics
needed for small project management?
Standardized testing or personality profiling of small project managers was only
conducted or reported by four of the 29 respondents to this question.

39. Do you maintain a skills database for all personnel to make staffing decisions?
Some form of a skills database was maintained for staffing decisions in 13 of 31
responses. The skills usually captured past experiences of employees. Twelve of the thirteen
indicated the same database was used for large and small project staffing. One interesting
comment written in the response for this question suggested that better talent was selected from
the small projects list for staffing larger projects.

40. Has cross training been used to cover possible expertise gaps in small projects staffing
requirements?
Cross training was evident in 20 of 27 responses. The general perspective was that it
increased overall ownership in the final product and processes. In a similar opinion, one
respondent highlighted the fact that some cross training improved communication and enabled
people to have a wider perspective. In design firms cross training was interpreted as technical
cross training. For example, cross training could be a civil engineer performing rudimentary
piping design or a mechanical designing thrust blocks and other foundation elements.

41. Where would you envision the most benefit would be gained from cross training?
Responses were received from 22 survey respondents to this question. They essentially
fall into four main areas of benefit as follows:
• Project ownership increases
• Increased flexibility with personnel
• Fewer staff specialists required
• Improved communication
The areas felt most promising for cross training were noted as some engineering disciplines,
project management, and most often, procurement.

42. What is your estimated annual corporate turnover rate for small project personnel?
Turnover rates varied highly among the respondents. Numerically turnover ranged from
0% upwards to 50%. Contractors reported higher rates simply due to inclusion of field personnel

37
where demands vary during the course of execution. The majority of the responses centered
between 10 and 15% annual turnover. This is somewhat contrary to the team integration and
teambuilding responses that suggested less of these activities were needed due to long standing
work experiences.

43. Is the system of incentives or rewards offered to small project personnel different than
those offered to personnel assigned to large projects?
Reward systems for small projects were not different for the contractors who responded
to the survey question. The negative comments made for this section were primarily from owner
and engineer firms.
• Large project personnel get more recognition and promotions (1)
• Fewer rewards for small project personnel (5)

Organization
44. Do you have a separate organizational structure for small and large projects?
Sixteen organizations responded (of 29 total responses) that they had a separate
organization for small projects. Major projects were viewed as setting up their own organization
and small projects were independent from that process. Constructors tended to more consistently
respond that they used a separate organizational structure. Several owners had established teams
within their organization to handle small projects programming separate from maintenance.

45. How long have you had the current organizational structure for small projects?
28 respondents provided the following information on organizational structure.

Table 3.4 Organizational Structure Longevity

<1 year 1-5 years 5-10 years > 10 years
2 11 5 10

46. Describe the organization used for small projects.

Most of the organizational formats reported were matrix organizations either as complete
matrices or team matrices. Teamed approaches distributed work to teams that were established
from available site personnel.

47. Do you maintain a permanent 'core management group' for small projects?
The concept of maintaining a core management group for a project was in effect for 17 of
29 responses in this category.

48. For contractors only. Do you maintain separate office facilities for small projects
personnel?
All but one had a separate facility for these groups to work within. For contractors it
depended on their total exposure with the owner. Some maintained separate offices where they
could economically make it feasible to do so. Otherwise they operated more from a central office
and management personnel reported to site when necessary.

38
49. Do you have a permanent workforce that participates in small projects?
Twenty one responses indicated they used a permanent workforce for small projects.
They were able to maintain continuity using four basic concepts:
• Integrate maintenance work (increased workload or more consistent)
• Integrate larger capital projects (supports main workforce component, supplement for
smaller work)
• Maintain a steady work load from the owner organization
• Employ local people who are more interested in staying at the project site

50. Do you try to mix experienced personnel with 'youth' on small projects?
Integrate new or younger personnel with more experienced personnel was practiced by 20
of 22 respondents. This process reduced the amount of formal training required. Using small
projects to ‘mold’ inexperienced personnel was noted in one response. In another the response
suggested this was more common on small projects than in general situations for engineers.

Project Processes

51. At which process stages do you authorize funding for small projects? What deliverables
are available for each funding stage?
Project approvals follow a wide range of processes from owners. Essentially three to five
step processes were described in the responses. The initial step would be development of the
business case. Some funding needs to be allocated to generate the business case documentation.
The feasibility stage requires engineering input and evaluation and authorization of funding to
cover preliminary engineering costs. The final approval covers the cost of engineering and, in
most cases, the authorization for expending construction monies. Many variations can exist on
these steps.

52. Is there a management review committee for project funding?

Management review committees were reported for all owners in the study. Engineers
also responded to this query since they are highly involved in the most of the capital project
approval processes. In alliance projects where the engineering firm has been fully integrated,
their participation is integrated through the owner’s contract management.

53. Do you manage small projects as individual projects or as a program of work?

Projects budgets were typically fiscal year budgets without carryover. Money not spent on a
project that would carry over into another fiscal year would be charged in the current year rather
than permitting the budget process to carry funds forward. Therefore, most projects are managed
independently. They are programmed as a group by various priority processes.

54. Do you have written standard process for small projects?

Two thirds (20) of the respondent firms had standard written work processes for small
projects (n=30). Ten responding organizations report not having small project written processes,
however they may have general processes for all projects. This question was specific to small
projects.

39
55. Do you provide training to support the process requirements?
Some form of training is available to support process requirements in 20 of 27
respondent organizations. Both written small project standard processes and support training
were reported in 17 respondent surveys. Only two reported written processes above that did not
provide training. On the other hand four did not have written processes for small projects but did
provide some form of training for their processes

56. If you use a single set of procedures for all projects, are they modified for small projects?
Nearly all of the processes were modified in some form to accommodate small projects.
15 out of the 26 respondents modified processes for their small projects. Most of the
modifications involved paperwork reporting requirements accomplished by evaluating the
standard processes to identify what applied to small capital programs. These modifications
include evaluation of project checklists and similar process standard elements.

57. Do you ever out-source project management of small projects?

Only eight of the 28 respondents to this question have used out-sourced project
management for small projects. The comments indicated that out-sourcing was limited to peak
conditions or overloads when internal staff could not maintain workload.

58. Have you 'activated' retired personnel for managing small projects?
Unless workloads exceed personnel capabilities, few projects are outsourced for
management. Fewer firms practiced retiree ‘activation’ for projects. Activating retired project
managers to work sensitive areas (security or proprietary production areas) within the production
facility was provided by one respondent as an example of where they would hire a retiree back
into the field.

Project Controls
59. How do you handle small project change control?
Small project change control is not unlike that for larger projects variance reporting,
change order logs, change tracking systems all seem to mirror general project control systems.
Special change controls systems for small projects were reported for 11 out of 24 responses.
However, detailed examination of the special systems suggests these are generally the same
processes used for large projects with some minor revisions to reporting fields.

60. Do you use any special project control systems for small projects?
Special project controls were reported by 11 of 29 respondents to this survey question.
Several report using internal or proprietary computerized project tracking systems, which were
designed or tailored for small projects. In some cases the tracking is a simple list management
on a spreadsheet system while others have been developing integrated packages that track project
forms, estimates, and progress from start to finish. Labor analysis reports, project tracking
(status) systems, and integrated cost and estimating systems were identified as being used on
small projects.

40
61. For project completed in the last 12 months provide the average time from initial project
idea until a) funding approval and b) mechanical completion.
Excluding public or government contracts yields a general range of 60 to 180 days for
project funding approval, with many responses in the 90-day range. The time to mechanical
completion was similar in the 360 to 180 day range. The ranges varied among various
respondent groups, but the general completion averages by industry are similar, except for the
government entities.
• Consumer Products – 250 days
• Heavy Industries (Steel production, ore refining) 210 days
• Pharmaceutical – 270 days
• Chemical and Petrochemical – 210 days
• Government – 850 days

62. For the small projects completed in the past 12 months, what percent of them were above
or below the original funding budget? Do you track the source of the over/under runs when
they occur?
One in eight engineers responded with budgets that exceeded budget more than 10% of
the time. Five of five responding constructors had projects that exceeding budget more than
10% of the time. Six of eight owners had budgets exceeding their estimated budgets more than
10% of the time. The owners (n=9) reported 75% of their projects completed under a 5% overrun
limit, constructors (n=5) reported 80% of their projects and engineering (n=10) reported 88% in
the same range. Only seven organizations of the 24 respondents to the survey question reported a
tracking mechanism to identify a source of problems with cost overruns.

63. For the small projects completed in the past 12 months, what percent were mechanically
complete ahead or behind the original funding approval schedule? Do you track sources of
the schedule variances when they occur?
Five of eight owners report scheduled mechanical completion greater than 7 days late
10% or more of the time. Four of nine engineers report scheduled completion greater than 7 days
late 10% or more of the time and three of four responding contractors reported completion
greater than 7 days late 10% or more of the time. As was the case with budgets, only seven
organizations reported having a tracking method for schedule variances.

64. For projects completed in the past 12 months, provide the average cost as a %TIC for a)
Engineering, procurement, management and administration, b) construction labor, and c)
equipment and material costs.
Analysis of the average responses shows a wider variation of responses than expected.
The %TIC reported for engineering procurement, management and administration labor varied
from 30% to as low as 5%. It did not appear that %TIC data was accurately tracked for most
projects. Once averaged for all data reported percentages showed little variation. For home
office costs large projects reported 18% and for small projects 18%. Construction labor also
averaged out to 35% for small projects and 31% for large projects. Equipment was reported as
41% on small project and 46% of large project TIC. Overall there is no significance differences
in the average values.

41
Contracting
65. When do you use reimbursable contracts?
Reimbursable contracts were used in 27 of 29 respondents in the project. The reasons for
using reimbursable contracts was attributed to poor scope definition by 9 of the 27 respondents in
the questionnaire. Several indicated that was the negotiated contract type and it expedites the
process. Few exclusively use reimbursable contracts.
.
66. When do you use hard dollar contracts for small projects?
From the survey, 21of 27 responded that they performed small projects on a hard dollar basis.
Three indicated this was their standard execution method while most others used for well-defined
scope of work situations, like specialized equipment and when time was available to fully
develop designs. The most unusual response was that hard dollar contracts were used when tight
budgets were involved.

67. For engineering design on small projects, do you use: a) in house design or b) external
design? What influences your choice?
In house design was typically conducted by those organizations who felt they still achieved the
efficiency necessary for their production requirements or due to sensitivity of the process would
not allow external design access. Twelve of 26 responses indicated design was conducted
internally. Fourteen of the 26 responded with external design with the only comment that
external was used due to alliance agreements. Six respondents in the 26 are double counted since
they responded that they did both internal and external design.

68. Do you contract for construction management services on small projects?

Nine of 27 respondents replied they contracted for construction management services for some
work. Generally the occasion to contract was due to increased workload and availability of
personnel on site

69. Do you have owner-engineering contract alliances for: large capital projects? Small
capital projects?

7(of 11) owners for large projects and 9 (of 12) for small projects reported use of alliance
contract arrangements for engineering contracts. 8 (of 11) engineers reported alliances for large
projects and 9 (of 11) reported small contract alliances for design.

70. Do you have owner-constructor alliances for: large capital projects? Small capital
projects?
7 (of 11) owners reported using owner-contractor alliance agreements for large projects
and 9(of 11) for small contracts. Only three contractors completed this section of the
questionnaire and 2 (of 3) reported alliance agreements for large and small contracts.

71. When do you elect to use alliance partnerships vs. traditional contracting practices for
small projects?
Alliance contracts are usually executed whenever possible. The alliance partner specialty or
expertise on proven technology areas is important to the selection of the alliance partner. Many

42
responses simply stated they used alliances all the time. The original alliances existed for taking
advantage of services and expertise. In some cases the alliance agreements are more cost
effective for project execution.

72. Do you use vendor alliances for small projects?

Vendor alliances are used for reasons similar to alliances with service providers. From the
survey results 25 of 28 use vendor alliances for small projects

73. Do you use a single prime contractor or multiple-prime contractors for small projects?
Which is the preferred approach and why is it preferred?
The most favored method of contracting is with single prime contractors rather than
multiple prime contractors. The advantage is a single point of responsibility. One constructor
reported a preference for multiple-prime and two owners reported multi-prime preference.

Safety Health and Environment

One of the major sections in SP13 was health, safety and environment with a view that
health and safety requirements were often relaxed for small projects. Table 3.5 summarizes
responses to the questionnaire section on safety.

Table 3.5 Safety and Health Question Responses

Question YES NO
74. In your experience, are safety and health requirements relaxed on small 3 27
projects?
75. Do projects have written site-specific safety plans? 27 5
76. Do projects have written site-specific emergency plans? 27 4
77. Do small projects use a site safety supervisor? 28 4
78. Do you use a written safety incentive program for hourly craft workers on small 12 19
projects?
79. Are toolbox safety meetings required on small projects? 28 4
80. Is pre-hire substance abuse testing required? 29 3
81. Are small project personnel randomly screened for alcohol and drugs? 22 10

82. What was the OSHA safety records on projects for the past year?

Table 3.6 Small project Incident and Recordable Rates

Incident Rate Recordable Rate
Min Maximum Minimum Maximum
Owner(6) 0 1.17 0 5.00
Engineering (5) 0 0.40 0 3.46
Constructor (5) 0 0.20 0 4.60

43
Table 3.7 Large project Incident and Recordable Rates
Incident Rate Recordable Rate
Min Maximum Minimum Maximum
Owner 0 1.17 0 0
Engineering 0 0.3 0 0.8
Constructor 0 1.25 0 1.25

The data is inconclusive due to a low response rate. However, the pattern would suggest that the
Recordable rates are higher on small projects. Since there is little back-up information
speculation on causes for the differences is inappropriate.

Technology and Information Systems

83. In general, do you use automated project controls for: a) project scheduling, b) Project
budget control or c) project productivity tracking?

Table 3.8 compares three major areas of project controls and the use of automation to assist in
the process. For project scheduling fewer projects were using software to schedule projects or
they were just beginning to apply scheduling to their small project programs.

Table 3.8 Automated Controls

Project Type
Automated Tracking on Large Automated Tracking on Small
Control Activity Projects Projects
Yes No Yes No
Project 27 0 23 6
Scheduling
Budget Control 27 0 23 3
Productivity 20 4 12 15

84. What new tools or technologies have you found to be most effective for small projects?

The new tools or technologies most effective for small projects drew a wide range of responses.
Consistent with the automated tracking question above scheduling software and budget software
were the most popular.
• Scheduling software (11)
• Automated budget systems (3)
• Digital cameras (3)
• Integrated software (MSOffice, Lotus Notes) (5)
• Cell phones and radios (2)
• Website
• Email
• Bar coding
• Lessons learned files

44
85. Do you use automation in engineering work flow processes?

Half of the 20 respondents also said they used some form of automation in their design process
like computer aided design. Several firms were working toward incorporating 3-D CAD into
their small project designs, however they felt it was limited due to cost.

Responses to the following two questions are combined into Table 3.9.

86. For communications on small projects, what forms of automation are used?
87. Is there other internal or customized technology being developed specifically for the
planning, design, or management of small projects?

Table 3.9 Technology and Communications

Package software Web page Email Intranet
Owner (12) 0 2 11 2
Engineer (17) 1 2 13 4
Contractor (5) 2 2 5 0

Little to report in new developments – some integration effort still evident in facilities packages
more use of database capabilities

88. What new technologies have benefited small projects the most?

New technology benefits for small projects were primarily identified as e-mail, digital
photographs, and cellular telephones. These three technologies improve or add to
communications capabilities. Several respondents identified SAP as an improvement.

Miscellaneous
This section represented a catchall for questions of interest that would not fit under previous
categories.

89. What are specific measures of success for small projects/program?

Specific measures for project success are not much different than those expected for large
projects the following represent the primary responses for project success criteria:
• Cost or budget (17)
• Schedule (12)
• Customer Satisfaction (5)
• Safety (5)
• Functional (5)
• Quality (2)
• Rework (2)
• None (2)

45
 • Pick the right jobs to support the business (measured by improved costs of production and
profit)
• Continued employment

90. What metrics are measured and maintained to track small project success?

Metrics tracked are more limited, but follow the previous listing - IRR, % authorization,
TIC, cycle time, internal client satisfaction (owner PM with owner plant divisions).

Two questions on CII Best Practices and Benchmarking Database are combined.
91. Do you track CII Best Practices recommendations for project success?
92. Do you submit your small project data to the CII benchmarking database?
Only 4 respondents (of 24) stated they were tracking CII best practice recommendations on
their small projects. Submission to CII benchmarking database was even lower with only 1 “yes”
response and 24 “no” responses.

93. Do you maintain a lessons learned file for small projects?

Lessons learned were maintained in 8 small project responses, 2 were very informal
processes and one was described as the PM’s personal knowledge base. 19 others responded
they did not maintain a lessons learned file

94. Based on recently completed small projects, what has gone wrong from a project
process viewpoint?

• Scope changes, front end definition (7)

• Schedule slippage and delayed work (4)
• Shifting priorities, some projects could have waited (2)
• Too many different interests involved in contracts
• Time compression impacting quality, business driven scheduling
• Lack of communication
• Punch list communication
• Ignoring proper procedures
• Incomplete engineering
• Team participation
• Downsizing

95. Based on recently completed small projects, what has gone well from a project process
viewpoint?

• Strong team effort, team continuity (2)

• Achieved budget goals
• More on track with PDRI
• Design reviews for detailed scope

46
 • Canceled projects for lack of merit
• Used engineering discipline staff as PMs for some work
• Customer service representative on team
• Met plant needs (satisfaction measures)
• Reduced services costs
• Maintained core group of supervisors
• Used good change management
• Cost control improved
• Better relationships

96. If you were benchmark yourself against a highly successful small project execution
organization, who would you choose? Why?

No responses were recorded in the survey for this question.

97. What practices have you improved in the last five (5) years for your small projects
processes?
• Work closer with owner safety process
• Better project prioritization (choosing the right ones not just the large ones)
• More IT available for project use
• Standardized estimating techniques
• Declared average durations,
• Increased automation in schedule process,
• Decreased contingency,
• Increase scope definition discipline
• Started management review committee
• Safe productivity
• Project scope write-ups improved
• Better work estimating techniques
• Improved management of change;
• Improved customer interface;
• Better response times;
• Improved "team" personality.
• Integration of owner/contractor yielding lower costs
• Communications,
• Identifying & communicating project problems, concerns,
• FEL efforts to avoid project re-cycle
• Back to BASICS" effort to reinforce doing things we know to do and getting consultant
more involved
• Alliance contractors do the majority of the work.
• Actually lost some ground going to alliance - inexperienced in our industry - plant
acceptance poor - vastly improving
• Better alignment of talent and resources to correct projects

47
 • Reduce the amount of oversight (reporting, etc.) to allow more time for hands on
management of the projects.

Survey Closure
Although not all the respondents completed every section of the survey, nor did all the
surveys get returned as promised, the data collected is felt to be fairly representative of a variety
of approaches to small projects. Of greater interest is the lack of response to one of the
miscellaneous questions that asked the respondent to identify a highly successful small project
organization. Many respondents indicated this was the most difficult question in the survey and
that after considering the question said they did not know of an organization to recommend. The
summary of the survey has demonstrated, however, that there is a great amount of diversity
among the respondents.

Project Manuals And Checklist Data

Project checklists and project execution manuals were requested from responding
companies to help the team identify processes and procedures used in existing project
management systems. While eighteen respondents indicated they used checklists and expedited
processes for small projects only nine would provide checklists or expedited process information.
Of these, only three actually provided checklist information and in each case they requested
complete confidentiality. Four project manuals describing project or management processes
were provided for reference under the same confidentiality agreement. Due to the constraints on
this information and data the research team would not be able to achieve this portion of their
originally proposed scope of work.

48
 Chapter 4 Data Analysis
Introduction
The survey summary in Chapter 3 provides some insight into the current response
patterns in the individual data sections. However, indicators of success or patterns in the
data could not be uncovered by simply summarizing the information. The approach to
the analysis portion of the research is to compare data among categories and determine if
certain features are present or not. This type of analysis is most commonly called
classification research. The two basic tasks in classification research are construction of
categories and assigning observations to the appropriate category or multiple categories in
multidimensional situations. The purpose of the classification is to identify differences
among the categories or to explain phenomena within a category. The classification
approach will create a map to orient subsequent researchers on the subject of small
project management.

In addition to survey data, the notes from the interviews conducted with 43 project
personnel were subjected to a classification summary review. The results of the interview
findings will also be reported in this chapter.

Small or Large Project Focus

Within the data set collected for the research the company project focus is one
categorization of the data that is recognizable. There are those organizations in the
respondent set whose primary focus remains in the large project environment and those
whose focus is on programs of small projects. Two criteria were used to classify the data.
To be classified as a small project focused organization two possible criteria were
identified: 1) if under $20 million was reported by the respondent for their total capital
budget; and 2) organizations who reported more than 20% of the annual budget was
comprised of small projects. This separation resulted in:

• 10 organizations classified as large project focused.

• 23 organizations classified as small project focused
• 3 organizations did not provide the data requested to be classified for this analysis.

For this analysis the respondents retained their work focus classification as Owner,
Engineer, or Constructor. Recall that these are the work classifications of the respondent
and not the overall corporate function.

Budget Performance Comparison

Table 4.1 shows more under budget performance average performance for small project
focused organizations. Unfortunately so few organizations provided the requested data it
is a limited comparison. Several respondents cited lack of data availability in the format
requested. For ‘small project focused owners’ the data suggests they have more overall
variability in their small project budget performance than large projects. While
insufficient detail exists to fully examine the information reported in each cell, the
indications are that owner small project-focused organizations’ budget estimates on small

49
projects tend to have poorer performance (defined as either over or under performing
budgets by more than 5%) than those for constructors or engineers. In addition, the large
project focused class of respondents seem to have better consistency overall.

Table 4.1 Average Budget Performance (% of Projects Completed in past 12 months)

Function More than 5% Between 5% over More than 5%
Classification Under Budget and 5% under over budget
Large Project Focus
Owner (3) 11 80 9
Engineer (1) 20 70 10
Constructors (1) 15 50 35
Small Project Focus
Owner (4) 31 45 24
Engineer (4) 35 60 5
Constructor (3) 47 38 15

Schedule Performance Comparison

Small project focused organizations appear to function significantly better on schedules
than the large project focused organizations. Large project organizations, with the
exception of the one contractor reporting this data, barely maintain 50% of their projects
on or ahead of schedule compared to nearly 70% for small project focused organizations.
One possible explanation of this difference could be the shorter project cycle and tighter
initial conditions for small projects could be more difficult for firms and personnel more
accustomed to large project requirements to accommodate in their planning sequences.

Table 4.2 Average Schedule Performance (% of Projects Completed in past 12 months)

Function More than 7 days Between 7days More than 7 days
Classification Ahead of Schedule ahead and 7 days behind schedule
behind
Large Project Focus
Owner (3) 40 15 45
Engineer (3) 13 35 52
Constructors (1) 5 68 27
Small Project Focus
Owner (4) 8 60 27
Engineer (7) 20 49 36
Constructor (3) 21 63 16

Table 4.3 summarizes the average funding approval time and mechanical
completion time for small project focused groups and large project focus.

50
Table 4.3 Funding Approval and Mechanical Completion Comparisons
Function Funding Mechanical Completion
Classification Approval (Days) (Days)
LARGE Large Projects Small Projects Large Projects Small Projects
PROJECT
FOCUS
Owner (3) 180 45 645 255
Engineer (3) 90 30 270 50
Constructors (1) n.a. n.a. n.a. 180
Small Project Large Projects Small Projects Large Projects Small Projects
Focus
Owner (4) 150 90 610 280
Engineer (7) 210 100 636 240
Constructor (3) 180 60 455 105
n.a. – not available

Project durations by industry, reported in the data are also of note:

• Consumer Products – 250 days
• Heavy Industries (Steel production, ore refining) 210 days
• Pharmaceutical – 270 days
• Chemical and Petrochemical – 210 days
• Government – 850 days

Core Team Function

An additional way to examine the project data was to examine the overall
management function in terms of those organizations who maintained a core team and
those who did not. The analysis does not include estimates provided by agencies of the
federal government whose response time was significantly longer. For those
organizations that did maintain a core team for all projects, they averaged 204 days to
mechanical completion. Those who did not maintain a core management teams finished
in 247 days on average. This represents a 17% improvement in mechanical completion
time. In addition, the same classification of the data shows funding approval in 102 days
for organizations that maintain small projects focused teams and 212 days average
funding approval for those who do not. This is slightly more than 50% improvement over
non-small project core teams. In terms of performance core teams were able to complete
projects 85% of the time with less than a 7-day overrun compared to 54% of the time for
organizations where small project core teams were not maintained. Budget performance
was similar for both classes at 85 to 86% of all projects brought in at or below projected
budgets. Clearly permanent core teams would have better communications and transitions
than those organizations that do not have dedicated small management groups.
Among the organizations reporting the use of a core team for small projects, 12 of
13 responses maintained a small project workforce as well (only 13 of the 15 core team
positive surveys responded to this question). These organizations had access to a ready
and available pool of resources to complete projects.

51
Standard Small Project Processes
Budget performance and schedule performance are reclassified in Table 4.4 using
a multidimensional classification for the respondent’s function and the use of
standardized processes. In evaluating the distribution of data, a comparison was
performed for those responding positive to having written standard processes for small
projects. The comparison will be based on column C, the percent of projects exceeding
5% of the budget, and column F, the percent of projects exceeding 7 days over schedule.
All the respondents whose function was an owner used standardized project processes, so
no further comparison can be made. Schedule performance and budget performance was
better for those using standard processes. Constructors showed better performance for
budget but poorer performance on schedule. Overall, the trend in this data would suggest
that standard processes improve the likelihood of achieving budget and schedule
performance goals.

Table 4.4 Standard Process Impact

Standard Budget Performance Schedule Performance
Process (% of Projects) (% of Projects)
Function Category Category
A B C D E F
Owner NO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
YES 31 45 24 21 63 16
Engineer NO 60 38 2 30 30 40
YES 20 74 6 12 64 33
Constructor NO 15 60 25 5 80 15
YES 62 28 10 11 50 39
BUDGET CATEGORIES SCHEDULE CATEGORIES
A – >5% or more below budget D – > 7 days ahead of planned schedule
B – between + 5% or -5% from planned E – between +7 days or -7 days from
budget planned schedule
C –>5% or more above budget F – > 7 days over planned schedule
n.a. – not available n.a. – not available

Performance Classification Analysis

Another classification in the data is a distinction between the higher performance
organizations and lower performance organizations. Performance data was provided by
17 of the 36 respondents. The classification of ‘lower performance’ is not intended to
place a negative connotation on those organizations. It only signifies that other
organizations have reported higher percentages of their projects were at or below target
levels on small projects they have completed in the past 12 months. The classification of
higher performance category was established as 90% of the reported projects completing
not more than 5% over budget. Ten organizations were classified with higher budget
performance. Higher schedule performance was established as 90% of their projects
being accomplished fewer than 7 days beyond the planned schedule. Table 4.5
summarizes the number of organizations that were classified according to this
distribution. Six of 17 organizations were higher in both budget and schedule while five

52
were lower in both. This definition of higher performer and lower performance
organizations will be used for several additional classifications below. Several
organizations provided data for one or the other category. This analysis is limited to only
those organizations providing data for both schedule and budget performance.

Table 4.5 Performance

Budget Performance Schedule Performance No. Organizations

Category Category
Higher Budget Performance Higher Schedule Performance 6
Lower Budget Performance Higher Schedule Performance 2
Higher Budget Performance Lower Schedule Performance 4
Lower Budget Performance Lower Schedule Performance 5

Project Checklists Influence on Performance

Use of project checklists has an impact on the project outcome. Seven of ten
organizations with higher budget performance indicated that they used checklists in front
end planning. Among the organizations reporting lower budgets performance, six of
seven in this category did not use detailed checklists. The same analysis was conducted
for schedule performance. In six of eight higher schedule performance organizations
project checklists were used. Only three of nine organizations showing lower
performance for schedules used detailed checklists. For those showing higher
performance for both classifications, five of the six organizations used checklists.
Likewise, in classifications for lower performance only one of the five used checklists.

Constructability Review
Constructability review’s influence to cost or schedule is not measurable with this
data set. Eight of ten with higher budget performance had construction involved during
design. Six of eight of the lower budget performers also had construction involved
during design. Similar results were obtained for constructability and schedule
performance. Constructability or representation by construction during design was
reported by 14 of the 17 organizations reporting both sets of performance data. Thus, its
effect is uniformly distributed among all of the respondents.

Construction and Maintenance Work

Maintaining a consistent workforce shows a positive relationship to project
performance classification. Nine of ten higher budget performance organizations had the
constructors performing some maintenance work on the site as compared to only five of
eight in the poorer performing category. Six of nine higher schedule performance
organizations had constructors doing both maintenance and capital projects work. Seven
of nine respondents in the high budget performance and five of seven high schedule
performance respondents did not maintain separate capital project and maintenance
workforces. Thus, maintaining a consistent workforce by performing capital and
maintenance work provides benefits to both schedule and budget performance.

53
Teambuilding
Benefits of team building are not reflected in budget performance. However,
higher schedule performance organizations averaged near 40% of all projects using some
form of teambuilding. This is contrasted with the lower schedule performance
organizations averaging near 10% of their projects having formal team building.

Career Path for Small Project Personnel

Project performance and career path were compared to see if motivation of the
project manager and others might be a factor in performance. Seven of ten higher budget
performers had career path opportunities similar to other project managers. Only four of
seven in the lower budget performance group had similar career path opportunities. No
difference could be observed in the schedule performance. Assuming that project
managers and others are evaluated on the cost performance of their projects regardless of
the project type or size, the relationship to career path and budget performance can be
rationalized.

Program of Work or Individual Projects

Predominate management process is to treat each small project as an individual project.
Some look at small project both as a program of work and as individual projects. No
significant difference in responses between the two sets of data was found.

Standard Processes
Written standard processes were evaluated earlier under a separate data classification.
Within this classification it can be seen that standard written processes have a positive
impact on project budget performance. Seven of ten best budget performers and seven of
eight best schedule performers had standard written processes. Only four of seven poorer
budget performers and four of nine poorer schedule performers had standard written
processes. This would suggest that standard processes benefit project performance.

Contracting
The impact of alliance contracts could not be extracted from the data. Eleven of
16 organizations responding to performance data use owner-engineering alliances for
small capital projects and 14 of 17 organizations responding to the performance data
section have alliances between owner and constructor organizations.

Automated Project Controls

Analysis of the use of project controls by higher and lower performance
classification did not reveal any difference among the organizations. The use of both
project scheduling and project budget controls that are automated was widespread among
all survey respondents. Automated productivity tracking was equally split between the
groups and shows no relationship to performance.

54
Performance Savings

Assuming that the predominate findings of the research regarding the basic
management activities of better performers would benefit others, an analysis was
performed to estimate the savings potential based on the data collected. The savings
projected in Table 4.6 are a very conservative estimate of the potential savings available
in small project organizations. The assumption is based on the following:
The savings and losses are based on averages from the data sample.
The averages were used to create a proforma analysis of the better performing firms vs.
the poorer performing firms.
The findings suggest that, for this limited sample, the better performing firms were able
to save 3.1% of their total project budgets compared to the poorer performing group.
This amounts to approximately $1 million per site. This is likely to be a conservative
estimate given the nature of the data collected. External information supporting the
findings was submitted from one of the higher performing organizations. They saved an
average of 8% of their total small capital projects budget spread over a number of plant
locations. They also reported $1 million in savings per site. Their performance at other
sites where these best processes for small projects have been implemented show even
higher savings.

55
Table 4.6 Estimated Performance Savings

Range Average %Projects Number of Projects Projected Savings Projected Losses Net Savings/Loss
HIGHER PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS
>15% under 1.7% 1.921 $122,637
10% under to 15% under 6.8% 7.684 $367,910
5% under to 15% under 23.5% 26.555 $847,636
5% under to 5% over 61.6% 69.608 $0
5% over to 10% over 5.1% 5.763 $183,955
10% over to 15% over 1.0% 1.13 $45,002
>15% over 0.3% 0.339 $21,642
Sub Totals $1,338,182 $250,599 $1,087,583
LOWER PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS
>15% under 2.0% 2.26 $144,278
10% under to 15% under 2.4% 2.712 $129,851
5% under to 15% under 21.1% 23.843 $761,069
5% under to 5% over 51.0% 57.63 $0
5% over to 10% over 14.3% 16.159 $515,795
10% over to 15% over 5.0% 5.65 $270,522
>15% over 4.1% 4.633 $295,771
Sub Totals $1,035,198 $1,082,088 -$46,890

Performance Difference (Net High - Net Low) $1,134,474

Overall Performance Difference % of Budget 3.17%

CALCULATIONS
Column B = Average of reported
Column C = Column B * 113
Column D/E = Column C * $319.2K
Column F - Net Savings/Losses

Assumptions
Average Site Budget $35,750,000
Average No. Projects 113
Average Project Cost $319,200
Upper and Lower Values Capped at 20%

56
Interview Summary

Interviews were conducted with 43 individual project engineers and managers

responsible for small project execution. This section will summarize the information
obtained from this research activity. The interview discussions were used to look for
more insight into the successful practices being exercised in the project processes for
small capital projects. One element that clearly is a key factor in the function of small
project teams is the project development environment.

Project Development Environment

While the traditional concept of a construction project is that the owner

determines a need, selects a design team, procures construction and commissions the
finished product. The concept develops differently within the small project environment.
The key difference is in the owner’s project identification or funding process.
Figure 4.1 is a generic model of the annual planning process conducted by many
owners. Many variations may exist on the exact process, but in essence the point being
highlighted is that there is a major difference in the process funding new major capital
projects and how funds are allocated within operating plants for small capital project
work. Major projects are generally opportunities to diversify or expand current business
opportunities and they frequently have higher returns forecasted than products in
established markets. The project is funded as a single stand-alone entity with a strong
time to market focus.
The existing business units, assuming they are in various physical plant locations,
must identify their needs through their internal structure and submit their list of needs
with other plants where they often compete for capital project funds allocated by
corporate management. Included in the project requests are small capital projects for de-
bottlenecking or upgrades with in kind replacements, maintenance requirements, and
projects mandated by safety, health or environmental requirements. Emergency projects
may or may not impact overall annual budget allocations. Some organizations favor a
single emergency funding allocation at a corporate level and hold reserve funds for this
purpose. Other organizations do not concern corporate management until the cost exceeds
small project budget capabilities or they require the emergency project funding be taken
from programmed small capital project funds.
The business case for each small project is required for any project to be eligible
for the funding list. In some instances the business case has been developed with a bare
minimum of design in the planning or an operating unit prepares the initial cost estimate
without any assistance engineering. The result eventually results in a budget and
requirements mismatch. To further complicate the process, the individual requests are
often packaged within a single request for an operating facility. If the entire package is
not funded, the plant must reallocate their funds using their own internal prioritization
procedures. The business case analysis is the key to gaining approval for a project.
Large projects have their own economic hurdles for approval, but in most
instances, once they have started their funding is allocated through completion. Major
project budget typically allows for carryover funding of the project from one year to the

57
 Market Analysis and Profitability
Forecasts Requirements
New Business Plans
Current Products
Research and
Development ANNUAL (or PERIODIC)
BUSINESS ANALYSIS
AND PLANNING
PROCESS

Existing Core
Business Unit Needs
Major Existing Business Unit
(Large) Budgets
Capital
Projects Other Business
Funding Unit Operating
Budgets
Operations Unit
(Plant or Site)
(typical)

Periodic Budget Adjustment

(quarterly adjustment typical)

Capital (Small) Maintenance

Projects Budget Budget

Mandated Projects
Safety – Health -
Environment

New Capital EMERGENCY

(Small) Projects PROJECTS

Figure 4.1 – Hypothetical Budget Allocation Process

next and distribution of overall project contingency would also carry forward in a similar
manner. Plant budgets, on the other hand, can be decreased or increased mid-course in
conjunction with normal business cycles, depending on the market and profitability.
Thus, the small capital program budget can be in doubt or at least subject to profitability
reports made in each quarter. This may result in budget decreases to improve overall
profitability or budget increases when performance is higher than expected. Last minute

58
budget increases can be as problematic as budget reductions for small project teams. In
some instances funds held in reserve are released at the end of a successful third quarter
for new fourth quarter initiatives. The resulting acceleration of work can create problems
with front end planning and design decisions and staffing requirements. Unfortunately, if
the money is not spent on these last minute projects, the amounts committed but not spent
are deducted from the first quarter budget for the next fiscal year. Thus, there is not likely
to be any carryover from one fiscal year to the next. In contrast, large projects are seldom
subject to this level of uncertainty in funding and workload except in unusual
circumstances.
In addition to budget fluctuations, the small projects process will also reflect the
level of industry and market maturity. In mature technology industries profits and markets
are well known and in some this means production and demand is nearly stagnant.
Improvements to plant capacity or technology often cannot satisfy return on investment
requirements. Thus, the budget becomes dedicated to maintaining the existing system to
avoid eroding profits from minimally profitable operations. Contrasting that owner
market with one that has increasing demand and higher profitability, the amount
management is willing to spend to de-bottleneck and increase plant capacity could appear
to be limitless because profits in this case are often high enough to provide quick return
on investment.
Therefore, in the mature market organizations, small project decisions may be
based on avoiding all expenditures that are unnecessary. In the expanding market many
projects are pushed into production before the full scope can be defined for the sake of
market share and profitability. This very simplistic view of the budgeting process can be
summarized in several key points:
• Large capital projects are often funded as stand alone budget elements, small
capital projects are included with all other existing plant requirements and then
compete for priority standing within that group of requirements
• Small project budgets can fluctuate significantly in a short time period which
reduces the effectiveness of planning
• Funds carryover in large projects but must be spent in small projects
• Existing plants compete with new business development and company growth for
their funds to support improvements, maintenance and mandated project
requirements
A major change in corporate structure has also changed the process by which
small projects are executed. Historically many owners supported a complete design staff
and some also had the capability to perform much of the small construction with plant
personnel. However, these capabilities in many organizations have been cutback and the
functions ‘out sourced’ by contracts. This has increased the demand for consultant
assistance on project design and in some cases project management for the owner. In this
transition period firms that traditionally provided design and construction services for
large projects were asked to perform similar services for small projects. Multiple
variations on the arrangements can be created, but the fundamental association is for an
engineering contractor to provide design services and construction contractors to provide
construction expertise. In many cases these are formed as alliance contracts providing for
longer term planning and relationship development. The data in this research supports

59
this change in process. However, the interview process indicated that a newly formed
alliance may complicate the project decision and delivery processes until the
organizations develop an understanding of each other’s culture and requirements.

The issues related to this change and others most commonly noted during interviews are:
• Core competencies have been eroded in many owner organizations. Engineering and
construction for projects are no longer considered core competency elements. In
several instances the problems encountered in project delivery resulted from lack of
familiarity of the project team with plant operating procedures and personnel. This
issue was echoed in a wide variety of plant settings. Although contracted services
have been used to provide design and related functions, many of the remaining owner
personnel are doing more with less and redefining how they accomplish projects.
• Importance of the role of the owner’s manager as the direct link to the operating units
and can engage in ‘plant-speak’ or the technical operating language specific to the
location. This liaison activity is key to front end loading guidance, proper scope
development, and maintaining the integrity of the project priority process.
• Small projects are not part of commodity delivery nor do they add significant
additional capacity. Their function in many cases is to support continuous delivery of
an existing product. The commodity driven owner mentality in many cases creates
problems. The plant operations personnel previously accustomed to ‘engineering on
demand,’ when the owner had an internal dedicated design staff are not sensitive to
the possible challenges created by interacting with contracted design services
personnel. Support time to help plant personnel investigate possible ideas for projects
may be billed to the organization. Other conflicts can also be created between
operations personnel and either the maintenance and capital works contractors on site.
Dedication to the communication process is important.
• Business case and preliminary design in scope development seems to be a critical
factor in small projects because there are somewhat fewer opportunities to revisit the
project scope and direction – once defined, it is possible that project completion
occurs within weeks, not years.
• Poor scope or understanding of the process from the plant or owner side of the project
will result in a less than favorable project. A potentially more harmful situation is
when the small project has the potential to interrupt the entire production process. In
other words, some small project risks far outweigh the actual project value.
• Organizationally, nearly everyone interviewed had engineering and construction
alliances, preferred vendors, or long term relationships built into their small project
procurement process. Once initial problems related to team integration are
accomplished, the integration can work seamlessly. Building relationships in a new
contract or alliance process was noted as a difficult process.
• Prioritization of projects is individual evaluation and often involves several financial
criteria (internal rate of return, value added, payback period), criticality (emergency
project, mandated by regulatory requirements, high profit generating production unit)
and some sense of timing for the project to be tied into existing processes.
• Project cycles can be difficult for fiscal planning. Small project budgets are not rolled
over. The do or die mentality is driven by the penalty imposed on new budgets from

60
 incomplete work that was ‘carried over’ from the last cycle. Since funding is
allocated on the fiscal year, expenses follow suit. When projects are not finished the
cost to complete is charged against the current year budget. In addition the funding
cycle creates huge variations in workload. Each year starts at zero new work for
engineers and constructors and then builds up to $60 million or more annually.
However the build up is not always gradual or uniform.
• It was recommended by several organizations that the owner needs more of a
partnership mentality in small projects due to the level of involvement of the outside
firms in daily production activities and in some instances decisions on project
feasibility.
• Accounting software influences both accounting and contracting cost reporting
practices of engineering and contractors. The use of one particular software
accounting package identified in the research did not have great support among those
interviewed with respect to the system’s extensive close out requirements.
• Union plants usually have a contracting-out committee. More than one suggested that
the union workforce will on occasion take on a project that is beyond their capability
and the small projects team must “clean up” the mess.
• Within owner organizations the ‘hot seat’ for advancement is in operations not capital
projects. Operations and production is where the organization generates profits.
Within this structure there are generally more limited career path opportunities (owner
organizations). This issue was not noted as a problem among engineering or
constructor firms during interviews.
• Training for owner project management and engineering staff has dropped off with
reduction in their engineering staff - fewer demands or less need perceived. The
opposite is likely to be the truth - more training, customized and specialized, is
needed and could be conducted with design and construction personnel.

Engineering
Design services provided to owners for small projects face a much different
environment than design services for large projects. The traditional large project
discipline line of command assigns tasks to individual designers through a discipline
manager or team leader. Large project design teams are often like-skilled designers and
the lead engineer is tasked with distributing the work among the team.
Small project design requirements cannot justify maintaining a full-skill level staff
with all the sub-discipline skills for design needs in an operating plant environment.
They are commonly staffed with a minimum level multi-disciplinary staff and additional
skill support is employed when needed. But even this staff level is temporary unless a
sufficient flow of projects in their individual disciplines is maintained. In several
instances the owner recognized several key disciplines as important to their mission and
desired to maintain the readiness and availability of key individuals. For this service they
were willing to cover the cost necessary to ensure a permanent core design team was
always present.
Cross training helps in a few circumstances, but the current level of cross training is
often too limited. Mechanical or piping designers sizing support footings and similar
tasks is likely to be the extent of cross training encountered. Developing the depth of

61
competency needed for regulatory and design code requirements in some discipline areas
limit the ability to properly cross train.
Several organizations in the research used a hub-office concept particularly where
small project design execution was spread out over a very large geographical area for
multiple plant locations for the same owner. The hub operation used site design teams
where appropriate, but for some designs the central location became the design team for
the remote site. The hub arrangement also permits centralized purchasing activities.
These arrangements, however, were noted to have more difficulty in establishing
relationships with their satellite plants. Even after extensive partnering activities, the on-
site design teams were felt the need for more effort for effective team-building.
Many small project design teams obtain additional assistance from individuals
currently assigned to large projects for a short period of time and when the task is
complete the designer returns to the large project team. This is the most difficult group to
work with in terms of team building. They are comfortable working in their discipline
specific environment and not dealing with project management functions. However,
when assigned to design teams in the small project environment some project
management tasks normally assumed by the lead discipline manager become the
responsibility of the discipline designer. Not all designers were interested in attaining
project management capabilities, which creates problems for small project teams if this
person is assigned to that environment. Generally cross training looks toward discipline
specific information, where cross training for project management skills is somewhat
more generic.
Several questions were raised about the quality of the individuals released from large
projects for temporary assignment to small project teams. Few suggested that the large
projects released their ‘best’ designers for the assignment. On the other hand, many small
project teams have been ‘raided’ for their talent to support large projects.
Where an in-house engineering function was still a viable option, the majority of the
organization’s building and manufacturing infrastructure were within a small radius of the
design team. In addition the volume of new product changes, research projects,
proprietary work, process upgrades and other projects drive a large volume of work to
demand full internal design services.
The engineering and their management staff assigned to the small project
environment had some common characteristics as described to the researcher in the
interviews. Typically the personnel on small projects exhibit the following characteristics:
• Enjoyed the constantly changing design environment and, in most instances, a steady
work load volume. They had no concerns about where the next major project would
appear that would employ them for another 18-24 months.
• Most commuted to work and could be involved in community activities with their
families. This was not always possible when they were on large project design teams.
The perceived trade off was less job movement to more responsibilities for stability
and better family life.
• Enjoyed the ability to physically see progress on the work produced. On large
projects they may never see the fruit of their labor.

62
 Technically the design requirements for small projects are not always that
challenging. Job enrichment comes from the variation in tasks and more ability to impact
the final decisions. The variation in tasks is accompanied by one complexity that is
missing in larger projects. Small projects have an increased number of client contacts
compared to most large projects. Small projects teams often work in several plants or
production facilities that have multiple production operations ‘within the fences’ and they
must communicate and coordinate with each facility representative, operations personnel
and maintenance personnel. Alignment with personnel in production and maintenance is
critical. A single manager of small projects may have as many as 30 or 40 coordination
contacts necessary within a single plant. A large project may only have five. Proper
development of front-end scope and design definition is largely dependent on the
communications that occur among the responsible parties.

Other issues identified among the design interviews that are of interest are as follows:

• Much more paper work. The documentation of design and related requirements are in
some cases reduced, but overall basic management reporting remains the same, close
out documents are the same, and etc. Projects are reported individually in each
process stage.
• More staff support and or more ‘soft money’ on large projects enables managers to
cover a non-performing employee (shove them aside) and staff around them. Small
projects sink or swim with the personnel assigned. There is no flexibility in terms of
performance. Thus, selection of team members is critical on small project teams.
• Estimating process could use further study to help define ranges and parameters for
estimating this type of work. The organizations who have performed small capital
project work and maintained records on performance have better definition of the cost
parameters, but still miss the target by a significant margin in some instances. Some
firms are using parametric models for contingency risk analysis and report better
accuracy of estimates than reported by other approaches to estimating. Benchmarking
engineering activities in small capital project environment is not very prevalent
• Scope definition process is a critical function. In addition, a function that is critical to
the project managers is having ability to say ‘no’ to suggestions and additions from
plant operations personnel once a project is into design (scope freeze). Unfortunately,
several reported that they had no control on changes if the production manager
directed the change.
• Small projects suffer from error magnification. Many tracking mechanisms use
metrics that measure the percent overrun. On small projects a minor error can reflect
a very large percentage overrun and makes the entire team look bad but the actual
value of the overrun can be very small. A related issue on overrun impact is the lack
of other sources of funds beyond the contingency. Large projects distribute their
contingency across the entire project and allocate to appropriate needs. Small projects
that have contingency must make their allowances within the project. Once the
allocated contingency is consumed, the next source of funding is to cancel lower
priority projects. Justifying larger contingency amounts for small projects is
problematic in some organizations.

63
• Do not try to save money by shorting design hours on project development. Small
projects often reflect a higher percentage design measured against total installed cost
(TIC). Smaller contracts require personnel with high interpersonal skills and
technical skills, on large projects the technical leaders are more often managers and
not designers
• Small projects are a continual feed of projects in various phases; design complexity is
compounded with multiple clients in the stream. Multiple clients imply multiple
demands in different phases each requiring different coordination requirements.
• Incentive cost reimbursable contracts agreements have been built into some
agreements. Several organizations have abandoned this contracting technique because
it was too messy to continually measure performance and related parameters to assure
incentives or at risk portions properly measured. This problem is compounded when
each project is measured for its contribution to the incentive scheme.
• Deep knowledge of site important for the design team. This includes knowledge of
individual department personnel characteristics and physical site knowledge.
• Schedule for many industrial and some building projects may be driven by equipment
purchases, turnarounds, and outages. If projects are not strictly keyed to these outside
influences, problems will arise. Outage schedule changes can significantly influence
project priorities. Poor coordination can result in project delays or outright project
cancellation.
• There is a major business decision difference in functioning as the owner’s engineer
and doing engineering for an owner.
• Several owners have reported a downside to external engineering as the result of
outsourcing designs has resulted in their standards becoming industry standards rather
than their internally determined quality standards. They felt a loss of quality resulted
from the change.

Construction
A low-bid process does not govern most contracting activities on small projects.
As with design functions, many owners have adopted a preferred vendor approach with
their constructors. Alliance contracting arrangements for small capital projects are
commonplace among the firms interviewed in this research. A key advantage that some
owners exploit from this arrangement is to use the alliance contractor to assist with the
front-end loading process. A key motivation for many of the contractors was the
opportunity to be on-site when a major project starts into the planning stage. They have
an early opportunity to be involved and possibly obtain the contract.
Early contractor involvement allows constructability and longer-range project
planning for the contractor. As suggested in the design section, the owner’s small capital
project budgeting and approval processes have a direct influence on the constructor’s
ability to arrange for equipment, personnel and material procurement.
Bidding for annual service maintenance contracts was also observed in some cases. This
arrangement allows for the constructor to maintain a more consistent pool of skilled talent
on-site that could be used on small projects. The maintenance contractors use their
constant work base to bid on small and larger projects that are open for bidding.
Competitive contracting on small contracts was discussed on several sites, but generally

64
the use of this approach was limited to those situations where it was necessary to drive
prices to absolute minimums. Long-term relationships however are based on the
contractor’s ability to stay competitive within the plant environment over the long run.
Partnering and alliances are generally difficult relationships to develop when the
parties to the external alliance firms are replacing long standing local firm relationships.
Historically, small project constructors were selected from the local contracting
community and, as a result, many small construction or design firms were available to do
work on site. An alliance contract is a major threat to maintaining these beneficial local
contacts. The people assigned to executing alliance start-ups do not have the personal
relationships that establish trust and confidence at the project level. In an alliance
contractors (design and construction) need to think and act in the best interest of their
clients since they are now engaged in the core business activity and no longer an outside
entity on a “green field project.”
Reimbursable incentive based contracts for contractors in most construction
settings considered a good idea, but they have not been beneficial for small projects. If
each project is going to be evaluated, the evaluation process can becomes an endless
event for progress reporting and overall performance reporting. Pay for performance
based on familiar factors as follows: 1) safety 2) production 3) customer satisfaction
requires frequent measurement that can consume time available for other planning
activities.
For contractors, the volume of small capital project work must be sufficient to
achieve some economy of scale. Owner budgeting volatility has a major impact on
projects planned by the contractors. Designers cannot adjust design teams immediately
nor can constructors procure labor, equipment and materials as quickly as the owner can
increase their work volume. In the case of work stoppages, once projects have started they
usually must be completed to a certain level for safety before they can be shut down
completely.
Contractors on several sites were used to assist in maintenance planning activities
but not in performance of the assignments. This additional service was valuable to the
owner maintenance personnel due to the contractor’s expertise with scheduling and
planning systems
Other construction issues from the interview process include:
• Contractors desire a stability factor – not that immediately important to the owner
unless they wish to examine the costs associated with increased costs for general
conditions of most contracts
• Equipment practices -equipment must be physically on-site14-30 days before
scheduled work begins. In some organizations, permission to start construction will
not be given until the equipment is onsite. Project personnel cannot wait and hope it
arrives as planned or plan on working in alternate locations. It is likely, should an
equipment delay occur during a project, that plant operations or production will be
significantly impacted.
• Fast pace of small projects often lack 'sanity checks' hard to look at in detail until too
late and project is in jeopardy
• Lacking an effective method to capture and implement knowledge from lessons
learned.

65
• Construction usually dictates which design drawings are needed. In the case fo
alliances this knowledge is communicated effectively to the design team. In addition,
alliance contractors do not typically included general conditions costs each time -
good continuity, no tours, no set-up, lower get-to-know-you time, no travel, lower
overall G&A costs
• Smaller projects tend to be schedule driven - scope management low - lots of scope
creep.

People
A few observations about small capital project personnel should be noted. These
identify some of the major issues currently impacting personnel.
• Why should personnel stay with small projects? Stability within EPC contractors.
While large projects have more overall clout and visibility, the small projects groups
remove the ‘end of project bailout’ problem. The opportunity exists on small projects
to employ good people who like a cradle to grave methodology.
• Expectations in employees and employment are somewhat different. Some admitted
that staying in one place lacked the large project glamour- but they liked going home
every evening, being involved with their family and community.
• Best small project performers often pulled off for big projects. Small projects are a
good opportunity to learn corporate processes and procedures. In effect a person on a
small project is exposed to project processes and procedures several times in the time
span on large project covers.

Miscellaneous
There are a number of other observations from the interviews that should be
retained from this research.
• Overall goals are clearer on large projects - small projects tend to be part of the plant
operations day to day thought process - hard to get people excited about small projects
• Small projects work was not viewed, in most circumstances, as a profit center for
most engineering or constructor firms, although they had to achieve a certain level of
profit.
• Lean staff limits their ability to execute some important activities. For example,
capturing lessons learned and sharing difficult to do with very limited resources.
Many of the managers interviewed were not sure if there would be a net return on the
resources committed to lessons learned even if information was captured effectively.
• In several cases a rapid success in plant changeover from traditional contracting
techniques using preferred vendors or contract design firms to alliance contracting
was achieved when the successful alliance contractor hired previous site staff.
Immediate continuity on the work was achieved. Some change in work culture
occurred, but was not usually a significant problem.
• Small projects are a multiple client environment where each plant division is a unique
owner organization. Each has different personality and work rules. Alliance
contracting organizations try to influence, often unsuccessfully, with their culture or
process expectations. Large project may be a lot of small projects but benefit from a
single organizational concept and single point of owner contactor. Some sites had

66
 eight or more ‘reporting directions’ for small capital project teams. In addition,
coordination with maintenance activities is important for overall work programming
in all the plants.
• Small projects workload is effectively higher. Small works work load intensity is
higher - more all the time…depending on the owner’s work allocation process

Key Findings
• Core project teams are related to higher project performance factors
• Written standard processes related to higher project performance factors
• Core teams and permanent workforce show better performance
• Project checklists are related to best budget and schedule performance
• Weekly meetings w/ additional meetings as needed were more common among better
performing projects
• Team building aids schedule performance, but does not seem to influence budget
performance
• Some correlation seen between budget performance and those organizations where
the career opportunity is the same as that for large projects
• Construction representation during design was a consistent practice among all the
organizations for small projects. Therefore, it does not show up as a contributing
factor.

67
 CHAPTER 5 Summary and Conclusions
Failing to appreciate the magnitude of work encompassed by small project is easy
to do. The projects are lower dollar value, they typically happen within existing facilities,
and generally fail to capture widespread attention. Seventeen organizations that reported
contracting dollar volumes for this research completed just under $500 million in
projects, which averages just under $30 million per organization. Therefore, the
summary and conclusions presented in this research can have a significant impact on the
delivery effectiveness and reduce the overall cost and time required for many of these
projects. The savings would enable organizations to do more with their capital projects
budgets.

Summary of Key findings

The research has covered small project issues from three distinct approaches:
1. Literature survey and summary
2. Industry Survey
3. Interview summary

This summary will begin from the same point of departure the literature review used as a
baseline document, SP-13 A Project Manual for Small Projects. Table 5.1 summarizes
the research findings compared to the issues and solutions presented in SP-13. With only
a few exceptions, most of the solutions recommended in SP-13 have been implemented to
some level and progress was particularly noticeable in the following areas:
• Safety
• Computer literacy
• Inapplicable standard control systems
• Poor basis for control
• Alliances with engineering and construction
• Contractor competence
• Inexperienced personnel
• Poor attractiveness as a career path
• Scope definition practices

While significant progress has been made on the issues related to these areas and some
progress made on most others, additional performance improvements are possible.

68
Table 5.1 Progress On SP-13 Issues
Subject Area Issues In SP-13 Research Findings Solutions In SP-13 Research Findings
FRONT END • Poor scope • Scope definition is an • Structured approach to • Front end loading process to consider
PLANNING definition a important element and risk management project risk
frequent problem continues to be a • Owners – develop project • Owners are preparing road maps but
problem. Front end road map changes (increases and decreases)
loading processes and • Use scope definition continue to upset the planning process
limited use of PDRI checklists
were found.
• Risk proportion – • This remains to be true
low dollar projects and needs continuous • Checklists are widely applied and they
that can stop the monitoring in critical have been shown to be related to the
entire operation process areas or project performance of the project
work areas.

DESIGN • Engineering • Engineering alliances • Use strong matrix • Design teams are commonly site based
purchased in a dominate the design approach in design and organized to represent key skills
sequential fashion process in part due to (people topic) required for a particular site.
with go/no go downsizing of • Freeze project scope – • Scope management during design is
decisions engineering staff in manage scope growth often a function of ensuring operations
owner organizations or production personnel understand the
• Cost is larger • Cost of engineering • Work breakdown impact of changes after initial front end
proportionally remains larger in structure/establish work planning phase
proportion to large hour and cost budgets • More controls were identified but not
projects. However, the • Incorporate specific to WBS
research did not identify constructability • Constructability or at least construction
this as an issue. Most representation
have rationalized the • Concurrent owner review • Review meetings are coordinated on a
need for this percentage weekly basis
differential. • Coordinate with • Alliances have brought additional
procurement procurement expertise

69
Table 5.1 Continued (1)
Subject Area Issues In SP-13 Research Findings Solutions in SP-13 Research Findings
PROCUREMENT None Clearly Identified • Capitalize on vendor • This is being done in many cases
expertise even during depending on specific equipment
design requirements
• Validate procurement • Many materials required to be on-site
milestones prior to start of construction
• Include contingency time • Modularization not discussed
in materials orders • Not identified as an issue or problem
• Use modularization • Procurement commonly drives
concepts schedule. This is being done.
• Limit sub tier • Use existing standard vendor contracts
subcontracting from the owner
• Relate procurement to the • Many vendor choices are driven by
schedule compatibility with existing equipment
CONSTRUCTION None Clearly Identified • Contractors should • Most construction organizations are on
establish area or plant site
offices • Did not investigate specifically
• Computerize materials
management • Formal project start-up still a limited
• Use a startup team activity
• With alliance or maintenance contracts,
• Visit Site and understand most constructors are on site and this
scope problem is eliminated
• Use WBS and develop • WBS not addressed
supporting plans
• Develop Project strategy • Project strategy, plan and schedules
document coordinated with plant personnel
• Weekly meetings or more frequent are
• Promote communication common practice. Alliances /
• Do not start work without maintenance contracts have improved
the resources contractor site presence
• Resources on site (2 week advance
required in some projects)

70
Table 5.2 Continued (2)
Subject Area Issues In SP-13 Research Findings Solutions in SP-13 Research Findings
START-UP & None Clearly • • Operability, and • Limited evidence suggests this is not
OPERATIONS Identified maintainability considered done
in design
• Seek operator input • See above.
PEOPLE • Personnel • Due to the training • Create appropriate • Not an issue in this research
assigned to small involved in processes, manager titles & give PM
projects are often small projects are authority • Still may be an issue, but stability of
inexperienced viewed as an excellent • Select people with proper team environment improves attributes.
personnel training ground in some attributes • High levels of experience observed in
instances • Use only experienced most all projects
• Multiple project Personnel/with right
• Multiple project management skills were experience • Did not find evidence of either in
responsibilities described in the • Maintain skills database widespread practice. Some liability
for a single research & use personality profiles possible with personality profiles
manager • Career attractiveness is • One instance referenced. Retirees not
lower for owner • Consider consultants and commonly recalled
• Poor career personnel in general retired personnel • Core groups have been established
attractiveness • Expertise for owners is • Maintain core special
(stability in continuing to be lost, projects group • Cross training is still an open issue
larger project) some problems with • Cross train/maintain
engineering and standing teams • Expert centers have been addressed
• Lost expertise – constructors • Expert centers somewhat with alliances using hub
mentors for operations.
younger people

71
Table 5.1 Continued (3)
Subject Area Issues In SP-13 Research Findings Solutions in SP-13 Research Findings
PROJECT • Reinventing the • Written standard • Integrate small project • TQM or continuous improvement was
PROCESSES wheel project process management into TQM not considered in the research
have reduced this program • Lessons learned were not captured in
problem • Share lessons learned many projects and their value
questioned due to variability of the
projects
• Establish written procedures & • Written procedures have been adopted
standard forms etc on many projects
• Limit owner reviews • Owner review is sequenced through the
structured front end process.
PROJECT • Short duration • • Use formal project controls • Formal project controls have been
CONTROLS • Poor basis for implement on all projects and
control automated schedule and budget control
• Inapplicable systems are on a wide majority of the
standard control projects
systems
CONTRACTING • Contractor • Alliances or • Partner with subcontractors • Not identified in the research
Competence - maintenance and vendors
hard to get a contracts have • Limit contractor liability • Contractor liability not identified in the
good contractor limited the research as an issue
for a small contractor source • Include incentives • Incentives were discussed. Benefit or
project problems value depends on their structure and
• Subcontracting • Subcontracting vs implementation.
vs. direct hire direct hire not
• Large contractors identified as an
tend to organize issue
according to • Project
market segment; organization has
smaller cannot been modified to fit
the type of work

72
Table 5.1 Continued (4)
Subject Area Issues In SP-13 Research Findings Solutions in SP-13 Research Findings
SAFETY, HEALTH • Safety and • Safety not being • Emphasize safety and health • Uniformly emphasized within all
AND quality easily compromised organizations in the project data.
ENVIRONMENT compromised on • Quality not raised
small projects as an issue in the
research among
owners, engineers
or constructors
TECHNOLOGY • Lack of • Not an issue • Computerize project controls • Widespread use of computerized
AND computer literacy identified in the • Promote computer literacy controls which in turn requires
INFORMATION research • Consider bar coding improved computer literacy
SYSTEMS • Bar coding limited in application
MISCELLANEOUS • Regulatory • Regulations still • Make small project • Small projects not a problem for teams
requirements applied with equal assignments an honor not and managers interviewed in the
applied with force. penalty research
equal force • Employ team building • Team building formal and informal
• Remote Location • Remote locations high in early stages of alliances.
not an issue in this Reduced need later on.
research • Pay scale differential • Pay scale differential not identified as
an issue in the research
• Be cautious introducing new • New procedures or technology only a
procedures or technology problem due to a lack of resources for
implementation

Notes: (1) Topic headings defined by CII areas of knowledge

(2) Classification of the issues is the responsibility of this author, not the Action Team for SP-13.
(3) Classification of the issues is the responsibility of this author, not the Action Team for SP-13. There are other suggestions in the SP-13 manual that
are applicable for general management of all types of projects, not just small projects. The chosen list based on those most unique to solving small
project issues.

73
 Comparisons of the top project success measurement factors from the literature to
the top measures proposed by small capital project personnel were nearly identical. Table
5.2 provides the comparison. Overall the only difference is the emphasis on safety among
the small capital projects responses. Otherwise the lists contain identical elements.

Table 5.2 Comparison of Literature and Survey Success Factors

Literature Top Factors Survey Top Factors (no. of responses)
Cost or budget performance Cost or budget performance (17)
Time or schedule performance Schedule performance (12)
Functionality or specification performance Functionality (5)
Customer Satisfaction or Quality Customer Satisfaction (5)
Management Quality (2)
Safety (5)

Chua et.al. modeled successful projects by evaluating 67 success related factors. Table
5.3 highlights the common factors among this complex set of models by arranging the top
ten elements into tiers, based on their occurrence in one or more models. The top tier
would include those factors present in all models of successful projects. The elements of
realistic obligations or clear objectives, plans, specifications, and constructability clearly
point to the importance of an effective front end planning process. Funding level and risk
identification are also elements of effective front end planning. Project manager (PM)
influence on project success suggests the need for competent and experienced project
managers. Construction control meetings (which would logically require budget and
schedule updates) and formal communications highlight the importance of frequent
communication on project status and requirements.

Table 5.3 Tier Rankings of Model Elements

Tier Model Elements Included
Tier 1 - top ten elements in all four models Plans and Specifications
Constructability
PM commitment and involvement
PM competency
Contractual motivation or incentive
Realistic obligations, clear objectives
Tier 2 - top ten elements in three models Construction control meetings
Tier 3 - top ten elements in two models Site inspections
Formal communications (construction)
Capability of key person
Economic risks
Tier 4 - top ten elements in only one model Funding
Budget Update
Risk identification and allocation
Schedule update
Pioneering status
Design control meeting

74
The literature models and factors were obtained from research conducted on a wide
variety of projects. While they may be somewhat generic from that perspective, they
have immediate and direct implications for small project management. Improvements
based on the elements in Table 5.3 would likely improve project effectiveness. Many of
these elements are also observable in the best practices presented in the conclusions.

Conclusion
The conclusion for this research will be presented in two major elements. The
first area to be covered is the group of best practices identified by the research. The
second area is a list of the outstanding issues on small projects that were not resolved by
this research.

Research Identified Best Practices

Best practices have been chosen from those elements demonstrating clear
advantage in project performance comparisons, commonly recommended practices from
the interviews, and the common points in the literature that apply to the small project
environment. The practices highlighted are not intended to be all inclusive of the
activities necessary to be successful. The breadth of factors identified in successful
project management literature covers a wide variety of issues not included below.

Front End Planning

Front end planning has been a key process throughout the research. The following
elements are keys to effectiveness. Organizations that had extensive and well-developed
front end planning processes were more effective in their project delivery.
• Project checklists have been identified as prevalent in higher performing
organizations
• Achieve internal client alignment before commencing with design
• Minimize no-value added investments
• Perform strategic capital project planning by front end loading against business
objectives
• Perform risk analysis for projects

Design
Constructability is a very prevalent process among all respondents to this research
and should be continued in the future. In conjunction with performing constructability
reviews, designers should continue to investigate and employ competitively superior
technology to projects. Limiting scope changes is a common problem for both large and
small capital projects. However, in small projects, due to the short durations, changes can
be particularly troublesome.

Procurement
Generally procurement for small projects was similar to procurement for large
projects. However, one advantage that can simplify procurement on small projects was to

75
use existing vendor agreements for the facility when and where appropriate to maintain
consistency with parts, spares, and training.

Construction
Maintaining a consistent workforce was related to project performance.
Rationally a contractor who performs maintenance work in a facility will be very familiar
with the facility and personnel in operations or production. The maintenance work
usually serves as the steady workload and small projects are accomplished by diverting
some maintenance personnel to join personnel selected for the project. This ensures
workforce continuity and reduces training and familiarization requirements.

Start-up and Operations

Start up and operations was one area in the research where an issue was uncovered.
Generally, operations and maintenance personnel are not as involved in the project
planning and design, as they ought to be. Therefore, the research recommends
implementation of some form of maintainability review or operability review where
appropriate for small projects.

People
People are always a key to project management. This research has shown tht this
is also true for small projects. Several people issue elements were demonstrated as
important factors in this research. They are as follows:
• Team building was shown to aid performance
• Maintain a progressive training program. Training on small projects was low for
many organizations
• Career development opportunities form small project personnel should be
increased. The research shows there is a slight relationship between budget
performance and organizations providing the same career opportunities as large
project participants.

Organization
Two areas were identified as best practices for project organization
• Maintaining core project teams is related to higher performance
• Organizations where contractors were able to perform maintenance as well as
small capital projects were more effective.

Project Processes
The primary focus within project process best practices were those that would
improve the communications among the participants. One of the major differences
between large an small project management is the significantly larger number of
interfaces between existing facility personnel and the project teams. Those practices that
would best enhance the communication capability were important to project success.
• Weekly project meetings were prevalent among all projects. They are viewed as
important to maintaining a high level of communication on projects. Additional

76
 meetings as necessary were also commonly reported among higher performing
organizations.
• Technology to aid in the improvement of communication should be adopted.
• Using standard written processes was related to higher performing organizations.
• Procedures should be tailored for small project requirements

Project Controls
Project controls have evolved to the point where most small project teams were
using cost and schedule tracking software to some extent. Many also prepared longer-
range schedule for program planning. Productivity tracking lagged other aspects in terms
of automated controls implementation, however information captured will benefit the
forecasts of future projects. The major element to consider in project controls for small
projects is that due to fairly short duration of actual construction, once a project starts the
control system is fairly passive. Personnel interviewed suggested that schedules were
critical to the planning effort.

Contracting
Alliances or preferred vendor agreements dominated the research sample.
Continued development of alliance agreements for small projects is likely with owner
organization downsizing engineering functions and direct work construction.
Procurement of engineering and construction expertise is the key to effective small
projects organizations from an owner perspective. Alliances that are established to
maintain a long-term relationship seem to be effective in many operations. Long term
relationships and trust were often mentioned in the literature as factors contributing to
success.

Safety, Health, and Environment

A best practice for safety, health and the environment is to continue to ensure
excellence on projects for these areas. Regulatory controls dominate these subject areas
and all members of the project team must be diligent in assuring they are achieving the
requirements.

Technology and Information Systems

Most organizations have already adopted various forms of technology form small
projects. Communications improvements are among the most frequently noted
improvements. Cell phones, pagers, e-mail, web sites, and others were frequently noted
in the research. These have obvious value in supporting the high level of communication
and information exchange needed in the small project environment.

Issues in Small Project Management

Based on observations and data collected during the research the following issues
are identified that continue to impact the effectiveness of small project execution and
delivery.

77
 • Small projects are potentially higher risk (large loss compared to small cost)
operations. Subjecting the small projects planning process to commodity delivery
concepts of quarterly budget adjustments and cutbacks to meet profitability
requirements continues to hamper the overall effectiveness of small projects
execution. Much of the inefficiency in the process is due to poor alignment
between small projects capital budgeting processes and the planning and design
necessary for small project execution.
• The front end planning process needs to be examined in more detail. Given that
budget fluctuations will always be present in small capital projects, tools such as
PDRI and other front end evaluations should be developed to ensure that projects
have the proper amount of scope development and design accomplished prior to
construction release.
• Improvements continue to be needed in forecasting project costs. The higher
performing organizations had an average of 6% of their project exceed budgets
while lower performing organizations averaged slightly over 23% of the projects
exceeding budget by more than 5%.
• Design continues to be performed according to traditional discipline specialties.
In many cases this is necessary, but for many problems cross training could
enhance the design process. Proper cross training will require an investment in
formal training for most design related opportunities.
• Plant operations an maintenance personnel need to be exposed to demand sof
small project planning and integrate these concepts into their planning. There are
often limited windows of opportunity for project tie-ins and plant personnel often
change schedules without consulting small project teams. Design and planning
effort is often wasted due to these communications and planning issues.
• More effort to involve maintenance and operations personnel in the planning
process will assist the transition and improve overall plant relationships.
• Written small projects process and procedures are needed. Many groups currently
use overall manuals typically developed for large project execution.
• Bench marking and data collection to support various planning functions would
be beneficial. However, this requires collection and analysis of the data. Data
relevant to small projects was difficult to obtain. Slightly less than 50% of the
organizations providing information for this research were willing to provide data.
• Lessons learned are not captured in a consistent fashion nor, in many cases, are
post project reviews conducted, other than finalizing costs. Capturing lessons
learned is a valuable element in the process improvement effort.

Many of these issues can be solved through direct action by individual organizations.
Others, however, will likely require significant changes in the approaches used for small
project execution.

78
Recommendations for additional research
The front end planning process is critical to proper execution and planning for
small projects. This research only had an opportunity to briefly review the practices and
procedures for front-end planning in a few organizations. Many innovative cost models
and planning schemes were noted in the interviews and surveys conducted. Lack of
supporting data and specific information related to these exceptional processes eliminated
the possibility to accurately report on their implementation. This subject area would
include project risk analysis processes, preliminary budgeting, appropriate levels of
engineering required and funding approval processes. This research would benefit both
design execution and construction provided the result is a clearer project scope and a
better identification of the project's priority. A direct value added benefit would be fewer
projects exceeding budget allocations and improved schedule performance.

A complete analysis of small project performance data by collecting key

benchmark data would enable small projects personnel to compare their performance
against other groups performing similar work. Although, some small project data exists
in CII’ benchmarking database, a comprehensive evaluation of that data has not been
conducted.

The impact of commodity-influenced decisions on the construction process would

also be an area of interest for future work. The purpose of the research would be to
identify methods to smooth out the workload fluctuations and resulting inefficient
staffing operations as a business unit rather than a service unit within an operating
facility.

79
 CITED LITERATURE
Ashley, David B., Edward J. Jaselskis, and Clive B. Lurie,(1987), "The Determinants of
Construction Project Success," Project Management Journal. Vol. XVIII, No. 2, June
pp.69-79.

Cheng, Eddie W. L., Li, Heng, and Love, P. E. D., (2000) "Establishment of Critical
Success Factors for Construction Partnering " Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 16, No. 2, March/April pp. 84-92.

Chua, D. K. H., Y.C. Kog, and P.K. Loh (1999) "Critical Success Factors for Different
Project Objectives," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125,
No.3, May/June pp.142-150.

Cleland, David I.,(1986) "Measuring Success: The Owner's Viewpoint," 1986

Proceedings, Project Management Institute. Montreal, Canada: Project Management
Institute, pp.6-12.

DeWit, Anton, (1986) "Measuring Project Success: An Illusion," 1986 Proceedings,

Project Management Institute. Montreal, Canada: Project Management Institute, pp.13-
21.

El-Bibany, H., D. Ault, B. Branch, and J. Bechtel, (1996), Project Management Functions
in Facility Owners’ Environment: Organizational Diagnostics, Journal of Architectural
Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 4, December pp 138-144

Griffith, Andrew F., Gibson, G. Edward, Jr., and Hamilton, Michael R., (1999) Tortora,
Aniello, and Wilson, Charles T., "Project Success Index for Capital Facility Construction
Projects," Journal of Performance of Construction Facilities, Vol. 13, No.1, February,
pp.39-45.

Griffith, A. and J.D. Headley, (1998), “Management of Small building works,”

Construction Management and Economics, E&FN Spon, 16, pp. 703-709.

Griffith, A. and J.D. Headley, (1995), “Developing an effective approach to the

procurement and management of small building works within large client organziations,”
Construction Management and Economics, E&FN Spon13, 279-289.

Harding, J.S., (1997) “Fast-Track your small projects,” Chemical Engineering Progress,
November pp 50-66

Jaselskis, Edward J., and Ashley, David B., (1991) "Optimal Allocation of Project
Management Resources for Achieving Success." Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 117, No. 2, June pp. 321-340.

80
Jolivet, Francois, and Spie Batignolles, (1986) "The Possibility of Anticipating, Several
Years in Advance, the Success or Failure of a Project," 1986 Proceedings, Project
Management Institute. Montreal, Canada: Project Management Institute, pp.35-39.

Loftus, J., (1999), Project Management of Multiple Projects and Contracts, Thomas
Telford Publishing, London

Malwitz, Nelson E., (1986) “How to deftly manage small construction projects,”
Chemical Engineering, June 23, 1986, pp.121-123.

McCoy, Frieda A., (1986) "Measuring Success: Establishing and Maintaining a

Baseline," 1986 Proceeding, Project Management Institute. Montreal, Canada: Project
Management Institute, pp.47-52.

Might, Robert J., and William A. Fischer, (1985), "The Role of Structural Factors in
Determining Project Management Success," IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. EM-32, No. 2, May, pp.71-77.

Murphy, David C., Bruce N. Baker, and Delmar Fisher, (1974), Determinants of Project
Success. Boston: Boston College Management Institute.

Naoum, Shamil G., (1994),"Critical Analysis of Time and Cost of Management and
Traditional Contracts," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120,
No. 4, December, pp. 687-705.

Payne, J.H. and J.R. Turner, (1999), Company-wide project management: the planning
and control of programmes of projects of different type., International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 55-59,

Pinto, Jeffrey K., and Dennis P. Slevin, (1988)," Project Success: Definition and
Measurement Techniques," Project Management Journal , February, Vol. XIX, No.1,
pp.67-72.

Platje, A., H. Seidel, and S. Wadman, (1994) Project and portfolio planning cycle. Project
based management for the multiproject challenge. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 100-106

Sanvido, Victor, Grobler, Francois, Parfitt, Kevin, Guvenis, Moris, and Coyle, Michael,
(1992) "Critical Success Factors for Construction Projects," Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 118, No. 1, March 1992, pp. 94-111.

Struckenbruck, Linn C.(1986), "Who Determines Project Success?," 1986 Proceedings,

Project Management Institute. Montreal, Canada: Project Management Institute, pp. 85-
93.

81
Tullett, Arthur D., (1996) The thinking style of the managers of multiple projects:
implications for project solving when managing change, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 281-287

Westney, R.E., Managing the Engineering and Construction of Small Projects, Marcell
Deckker, Inc. 1985

Will, M.R. and D.C. Stewart,(1991) “Project management for small projects: a case
study,” Proceedings of the Production Operations Symposium, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 7-9, pp. 641-644.

82
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Abudayyeh O. (1994). “Partnering: A team building approach to quality

construction management.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE,
10(6), 26-29.
2. Albanese R. (1994). “Team-building process: key to better project results.”
Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 10(6), 36-44.
3. Amoco Production Co. (1991). “Project management for small projects: A case
study.” Proceeding of the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Aril 1991,
641-644.
4. Ang A. H-S., Lee J-C, and Pires J. A. (1997). “Cost effectiveness evaluation of
design criteria.” Optimal Performance of Civil Infrastructure System, ASCE, 1-
16.
5. Angelides D. C. (1999). “Project management and good technical and business
practices.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 15(3), 78-88.
6. Ashley, David B., Edward J. Jaselskis, and Clive B. Lurie,(1987), "The
Determinants of Construction Project Success," Project Management Journal.
Vol. XVIII, No. 2, June pp.69-79.
7. Bartholomew C. L. (1987). “Design and construction performance: smaller
projects.” Journal of Performance of Construction Facilities, 1(1), 48-52.
8. Bashford H. H. (1996). “Small business in the construction industry.” Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, 71-73.
9. Bentley D. and Rafferty G. (1992). “Project Management: keys to success.” Civil
Engineering, ASCE, 62(4), 58-59.
10. Bubshait A. A. and Cunningham M. J. (1998). “Determining schedule impact:
working practice.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction,
3(4), 176-179.
11. Carrol J. R. (1989). “Elements of Project success.” Excellence in Construction
Project, 485-490.
12. Ceran T. and Dorman A. A. (1995). “The complete project manager.” Journal of
Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 1(2), 67-72.
13. Chalabi A. F. (1989). “Variable impacting design effectiveness key to project
quality.” Excellence in Construction Project, 540-545.
14. Charles, M. (1998). “EPA Proposes to curb small construction site runoff.” Civil
Engineering, ASCE, 68(3), p.112.
15. Cheng, Eddie W. L., Li, Heng, and Love, P. E. D., (2000) "Establishment of
Critical Success Factors for Construction Partnering " Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 2, March/April pp. 84-92.
16. Chua D. K. H., Kog Y. C. and Loh P. K. (1999). “Critical success factors for
different project objectives.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 125(3), 142-150.
17. Cleland, David I.,(1986) "Measuring Success: The Owner's Viewpoint," 1986
Proceedings, Project Management Institute. Montreal, Canada: Project
Management Institute, pp.6-12

83
18. Conley M. A. and Gregory R. A. (1999). “Partnering on small construction
projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 125(5),
320-324.
19. DeWit, Anton, (1986) "Measuring Project Success: An Illusion," 1986
Proceedings, Project Management Institute. Montreal, Canada: Project
Management Institute, pp.13-21.
20. Dunston P. S. and Williamson C. E. (1999). “Incorporating maintainability in
constructability review process.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE,
15(5), 56-60.
21. El-Bibany, D. Ault, B. Branch, and J. Bechtel (1997), “Project Management
Functions in Facility Owners’ Environment: Organizational Diagnostics.” Journal
of Architectural Management, ASCE, 2(4), 138-144
22. El-Bibany, J. Bechtel, B. Branch, and D. Ault (1997), “Facility Management
Value-adding Functional Analysis Model.” Journal of Architectural Management,
ASCE, 2(4), 170-175
23. Eschenbach, T. G. (1992). “Quick Sensitivity analysis for small projects and
feasibility studies.” Transactions of the American Association of Cost Engineers,
June 1992, p. L.6.1-L.6.8.
24. Fisher, A. (1985), “Engineering manpower costs more for smaller projects,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, April, pp. 133-134.
25. Gardiner P. D., and Simmones J. E. (1998). “Conflict in small and medium sized
project case: case of partnering to the rescue.” Journal of Management in
Engineering, ASCE, 14(1), 35-40.
26. Gibson, G.E. Jr. and L. Bell, (1991), “Electronic data interchange in
construction,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE
116(4), 727-737.
27. Glavinich T. E. (1992). “Micro-computer based project management for small
engineering firms.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 8(1), 53-62.
28. Glavinich T. E. (1995). “Improving constructability during design phase.” Journal
of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 1(2), 73-76.
29. Griffith, Andrew F., Gibson, G. Edward, Jr., and Hamilton, Michael R., (1999)
Tortora, Aniello, and Wilson, Charles T., "Project Success Index for Capital
Facility Construction Projects," Journal of Performance of Construction
Facilities, Vol. 13, No.1, February, pp.39-45
30. Griffith, A. and J.D. Headley, (1995), “Developing an effective approach to the
procurement and management of small building works within large client
organizations,” Construction Management and Economics, E&FN Spon, 13, 279-
289,
31. Griffith, A. and J.D. Headley, (1998), “Management of Small building works,”
Construction Management and Economics, E&FN Spon, 16, 703-709,
32. Harding, J.S., (1997) “Fast-Track your small projects,” Chemical Engineering
Progress, November pp 50-66
33. Jaselskis, Edward J., and Ashley, David B., (1991) "Optimal Allocation of Project
Management Resources for Achieving Success." Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 117, No. 2, June pp. 321-340.

84
34. Jolivet, Francois, and Spie Batignolles, (1986) "The Possibility of Anticipating,
Several Years in Advance, the Success or Failure of a Project," 1986 Proceedings,
Project Management Institute. Montreal, Canada: Project Management Institute,
pp.35-39.
35. Kaplan J. (1996). “Redirecting ASCE focus and program toward greater emphasis
on small business.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction,
1(2), p.68.
36. Kini D. (1999). “Materials management: the key to successful project
management.” Journal of Management in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 15(1), 30-34.
37. Kirpich P. Z. (1976). “Leadership constraint in project preparation.” Journal of
Management in Engineering, ASCE, 102(4), 417-422.
38. Koehn E. and Manuel J. (1988). “Variation in work Improvement Potential for
Small/Medium Contracts.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 114(3), 505-509.
39. Koehn, E. and S. Caplan, (1987), “Work improvement data for small and
medium size contractors,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, 113(2), 327-339
40. Kuprenas J. A., and Madjidi F. (1999). “Implementation of project management in
public engineering organization.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE,
15(3), 69-77.
41. Lakamp D. (1987). “Building a Team, Not just a building.” Civil Engineering,
ASCE, 57(7), 70-72.
42. Lammie, J.L. and D.P. Shah (1984), “Construction management: MARTA in
Retrospect,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
110(4), 459-475.
43. Larson E. (1995), “Project partnering: results of study of 280 construction
projects,” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 11(2), 30-35.
44. Levin P. (1998). “Construction contract claims, change & dispute resolution.”
ASCE Special Publication.
45. Line Management Group Ltd. (1999). “Company-wide project management: the
planning and control of programs of projects of different types.” Intl. Journal of
Project Management, Engg. Info. Inc., 17(1), 55-59.
46. Loftus, J., (1999), Project Management of Multiple Projects and Contracts,
Thomas Telford Publishing, London
47. Malwitz, Nelson E., (1986) “How to deftly manage small construction projects,”
Chemical Engineering, June 23, 1986, pp.121-123.
48. McCoy, Frieda A., (1986) "Measuring Success: Establishing and Maintaining a
Baseline," 1986 Proceeding, Project Management Institute. Montreal, Canada:
Project Management Institute, pp.47-52.
49. Melchers R. E. (1977). “Influence of organization on project implementation.”
Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE, 103(4), 611-625.
50. Might, Robert J., and William A. Fischer, (1985), "The Role of Structural Factors
in Determining Project Management Success," IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. EM-32, No. 2, May, pp.71-77

85
51. Moncarz P. D., and Osteraas J. D. (1986). “Designing for Maintainability.” Civil
Engineering, ASCE, 56(6), 62-64.
52. Murphy, David C., Bruce N. Baker, and Delmar Fisher, (1974), Determinants of
Project Success. Boston: Boston College Management Institute.
53. Naoum, Shamil G., (1994),"Critical Analysis of Time and Cost of Management
and Traditional Contracts," Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 120, No. 4, December, pp. 687-705
54. O’Connor, J.T and S.J. Miller, (1994), “Constructability Programs: Method for
Assessment and Benchmarking.” Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, ASCE 8(1), 46-64.
55. Ochab T. F. (1986). “Management techniques; Sewage plant construction.”
Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 2(1), 33-46.
56. Payne, J.H. and J.R. Turner, (1999), Company-wide project management: the
planning and control of programmes of projects of different type., International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 55-59,
57. Pefia-mora F. and Chen H. (1998). “Information technology for better
management of change, cost and schedule in construction projects.” ASCE,
Computing in Civil Engineering.
58. Pinto, Jeffrey K., and Dennis P. Slevin, (1988)," Project Success: Definition and
Measurement Techniques," Project Management Journal , February, Vol. XIX,
No.1, pp.67-72.
59. Platje, A., H. Seidel, and S. Wadman, (1994) Project and portfolio planning cycle.
Project based management for the multiproject challenge. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 100-106
60. Pultar M. (1990). “Progress-based construction scheduling.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 116(4), 670-688.
61. Radtke M. W., and Russell J. S. (1993). “Project level model process for
implementation constructability.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 119(4), 813-831.
62. Rasdorf W. J. and Abudayyeh O. Y. (1991). “Cost- and Schedule-Control
integration: issues and needs.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 117(3), 486-502.
63. Rhyne, D. M., and Kaminsky, K. D. (1987). “Automated estimating systems for
small contractors.” Transaction of the American Association of Cost Engineers, P.
b.4.1-b.4.4.
64. Riley D. R., and Tommelein, I. D. (1996). “Space planning tools for multi-story
construction.” Computing in Civil Engineering, 718-724.
65. Roluti M. J. (1986). “Construction management of small Hydro projects.” Water
Power ’85.
66. Sanvido, Victor, Grobler, Francois, Parfitt, Kevin, Guvenis, Moris, and Coyle,
Michael, (1992) "Critical Success Factors for Construction Projects," Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118, No. 1, March 1992, pp.
94-111.
67. Schei K. G. (1990). “Small project management.” Civil Engineering, ASCE,
60(1), 42-44.

86
68. Sheffied Hallam University (1998). “Management of small building works.”
Construction Management and Economics, 16(6), 703-709.
69. SP-13, Small Projects Action Team (1992), Manual for Small (Special) Project
Management,” Construction Industry Institute (CII)
70. Struckenbruck, Linn C.(1986), "Who Determines Project Success?," 1986
Proceedings, Project Management Institute. Montreal, Canada: Project
Management Institute, pp. 85-93
71. Stukhart G. (1984). “Contractual incentives.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, 110(1), 34-42.
72. Syal, M. G., and Grobler F. (1992). “Construction project planning process model
for small-medium builders.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 118(4), 651-666.
73. Tullett, Arthur D., (1996) The thinking style of the managers of multiple projects:
implications for project solving when managing change, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 281-287
74. Westney, R.E., Managing the Engineering and Construction of Small Projects,
Marcell Deckker, Inc. 1985
75. Will, M.R. and D.C.Stewart (1991). “Project Management for Small Projects: A
Case Study,” Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 21701, 641-644
76. Wozniak, T.M (1991), Efficent Control of Multiple Small Projects,” American
Association of Cost Engineers Transactions, F10.1-F.10.6

87
APPENDICES

88
 APPENDIX A – Research Team Members

Final Members

Dr. Gertraud Breitkopf, General Services Administration, Chair

Coy M. Campbell, Kvaerner
Terry L. D’Souza, 3-M Company, Chemical Division Engineering
Jon Dutcher, Abbott Laboratories
Eric Johnson, Solutia, Inc.
Tony R. Kanaly, BMW Constructors
Matt Nissen, Watkins Engineers and Constructors, Inc
Dr. Gary Smith, North Dakota State University
Jim Staudt, Rohm & Haas
Gareth V. Williams, Bechtel Corp.

Past Members

Joe Dobson, General Services Administration

Edward D. Goforth, Parsons Energy and Chemicals Group, Inc
Richard Gorski, Parsons Energy and Chemicals Group, Inc.
Richard Harris, James N. Gray Co.
Ron Herd, Celanese
Jack A. Hershberger, Eichleay Corp.
Gary Heuer, LTV Steel Company
Mark Hodson, Eli Lilly and Co.
Leonard Irvin, BE&K Engineering
Ivan A. Kolesik, Abbott Laboratories
John Leopold, US Steel
Jim McKusick, BE&K Constructors
Robert Nartonis, M.A. Mortenson Co.
Brad Sheridan, GSA
Tim Sullivan, Phillips Petroleum Co.

89
APPENDIX B SURVEY

90
INTRODUCTION
This survey is designed to collect information about small project execution processes. Specifically those points where
small project processes differ from large project processes are of interest. The desire is to identify ‘best practices’ or at least
those that are successful in any one company’s process. The results of the research will be published as a separate source
document, but the primary findings will be incorporated into a manual that is a toolkit for small project practices.

SMALL PROJECTS have been defined for this research as capital projects (note that maintenance projects are excluded in
the definition of small capital projects) between $100,000 and $2,000,000 Total Installed Cost (TIC). Some questions
necessarily cover a time period of your small project operations. Please respond for the current 12 month fiscal period
activities.

CONTACT DATA

Respondent's Name: Title:

Mailing Address: e-mail:

Telephone:

Fax:

Years of Project Experience Years Small Project Experience

Organization Name: Primary Industry

Operating Primarily as:

Owner
Engineer
Constructor

Annual Total Capital Budget: Annual Small Project Capital Project Budget

$ _____________________ representing the budget for the: ($)___________________

(Check One) Company
Division
Plant
(Check One) Company
Division
Plant

PROJECT DISTRIBUTION
Number of Projects Completed in Year No. of Projects Worked at any one time
No. New Work No. Retrofit (Revamp) No. New Work No. Retrofit (Revamp)

No. Small No. Large No. Small No. Large No. Small No. Large No. Small No. Large

Do your current projections suggest that small projects as a percent of total projects will increase, decrease, or remain about
the same as the data reported for the upcoming year?

SURVEY CONTACT INFORMATION

Dr. Gary R. Smith Telephone: 515 - 294 - 3916
Iowa State University
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering Fax: 515 - 294 - 3845
482B Town Engineering
Ames, IA 50011-3232 e-mail: smithg@iastate.edu

91
 FRONT END PLANNING
1.Due to the short duration of most small projects how would you Less
Same
More

compare detailed planning efforts with those conducted for large
projects? Please describe the decision process or capital projects
approval process for small projects, particularly where it is
different from large projects approval process.

2. a. Describe the logistics challenges that are different for small projects vs. large projects planning in your work environment.

b. What are the 'deliverables' from the planning process and how are they different from large projects?

3. How is risk management handled differently for small projects when compared to large projects?

Consider the following risk classifications. Is the risk that each represents the same or different for small capital projects
compared to large projects?
Risk Category Same Different Briefly describe key factors for the difference.
Engineering


Construction


Procurement


Performance


Regulatory Requirements


Health/Safety


Economic


Contractual


Environment


Political/public


Other (describe)


4. In project planning, a contingency is often included in budget and time estimates. Is there any difference Yes No
in contingency for small projects?

If yes provide a brief description of the differences you perceive in contingency for small projects.

What is your average % contingency for small projects? ____ % Large Projects? _____ %

5. a. Are specialized project checklists or expedited review processes used for small projects? Yes No

b. Would you be willing to provide a copy of your checklists/processes for our use in this research and Yes No
subsequent publication?

92
 DESIGN
6. a. Is a construction representative involved during the design of the project? Yes No



b. If 6a is yes, how is the role of the construction representative different (responsibilities or tasks) from large project
constructability efforts.
7.What are the deliverables for a small project from the design process?

8. What is the frequency of scheduled project team meetings during the design Daily  Weekly  Monthly 
phase?
9. What productivity measurements are tracked for small project design?

PROCUREMENT

10. Who performs procurement? Owner
Engineer
Constructor

11. Who typically performs expediting? Owner
Engineer
Constructor

12. Whose paper is used for procurement? Owner
Engineer
Constructor

13. How is the equipment vendor selection process different for small projects compared to large projects?

14. Do you use a bidding process for equipment supply? Yes
No

If yes. check the most common use of small project equipment supply specification.

functional specifications,

detailed specifications

or design/build concepts

15. Are small project deliverables such as spares, training, and documentation included/ordered with Yes
No

equipment?

Is this different from large project requirements? Yes
No

16. For small projects, what are the key deliverables in equipment contracts to insure functional, timely, and lowest cost
equipment?

17. Do equipment vendors’ delivery schedules for small projects require site visits, factory acceptance
tests, or restrictive payment schedules? Yes
No

If yes, How is this different from large project requirements?

18. For small projects, which project team members are included in the review of the equipment vendor bids, contracts, or
negotiations?

What would change if this were a 'large project'?

93
 CONSTRUCTION

19. During execution of the work, is there an owner’s Full time Part-time Not on site
representative on-site?

20. a. Does an in-house workforce complete small capital projects? Yes
No

Union Merit Nonunion
b. What type of workforce is typical for small projects?




Union Merit Nonunion
c. The workforce for large capital projects is typically

21. How is change managed for small projects?

22. What productivity measurements do you track for small projects?

23. What is the frequency of scheduled project team meetings during Daily  Weekly  Monthly 
construction?
 Other (Describe)

24. How is production down-time planned for small projects? How is this different than preparations for large projects?

25. a. Do the contractors for small capital projects also perform maintenance work at the same Yes
No

location or plant site?
Yes
No

b. Do they maintain separate workforces for small capital projects and maintenance work
Yes
No

c. Do they track project and maintenance work separately?

START-UP & OPERATIONS

26. Who prepares the master plan for commissioning small projects?

How is this different from large projects?

27. Who prepares and executes small project commissioning documents?

How is this different from large projects?

28. Who owns the documents? How is this different from large projects?

Where are they archived? How is this different from large projects?

29. Describe how small project closeout procedures are different from large projects.

94
PEOPLE
30. Please describe how are staffing decisions made for small projects from design through construction for your organization.
(How are personnel selected for working on small projects?)

31. What is your ratio of project staff to project TIC small projects large projects
(# staff personnel / $1,000,000)

32. Please provide an estimate of the ratio of supervision work hours small projects Large projects
to labor hours. (Supervision MH/ Craft MH)

33. What steps are taken to integrate small project teams?

What percent of small projects have formal team building planned? %

34. a. Is the team-building process different for small project teams? Yes
No

b. If yes, please provide some comparisons or differences between large and small project team building.

c. In your opinion, is team building as important for small projects as it is for large projects?

35. Do you have specific qualification criteria for small project team leadership?

36. Do you maintain a separate incentive structure for personnel on small projects? Yes
No

A copy of the incentive scheme or a description is desired.

37. Do small project personnel have a career path with opportunities similar to other project managers? Yes
No

38. Do you use personality profile or other standardized testing for identifying characteristics needed for Yes
No

small project management?

How are these traits different from those used for selecting large project managers?

39. Do you maintain a 'skills' database for all personnel to make staffing decisions? Yes
No

Is this the same database used for large and small projects?
If no, what is different for small projects? Yes
No

40. Has cross training been used to cover possible expertise gaps in small projects staffing assignments? Yes
No

41.Where would you envision the most benefit would be gained from cross training?

42. What is your estimated annual corporate turnover rate for small project personnel? %

How different is this from your organization's personnel turnover rate?

43. Is the system of incentives or rewards offered to small project personnel different than those offered to personnel assigned
to large projects?

95
ORGANIZATION
44. Do you have a separate organizational structure for small and large projects? Yes
No

45. How long have you had the current organizational structure for small < 1 yr. 1-5 yr.
5-10 yr. >10 yr.

projects?

46. Describe the organization used for small projects (ie: is it matrix, special project teams, etc)

47. Do you maintain a permanent 'core management group' for small projects? Yes
No

Do they have their own physical location?

48. Question for Contractors Only

Do you maintain separate office facilities for small projects personnel? Yes
No

Is a separate small project staff maintained for these offices? Yes
No

49. Do you have a permanent workforce that participates in small projects? Yes
No

How is continuity maintained from project to project?

50. Do you try to mix experienced personnel with ‘youth’ on small project teams? Yes
No

PROJECT PROCESSES

51. At which process stages do you authorize funding for small projects?
What deliverables are available for each funding stage?

At which process stages do you authorize funding for large projects?

What deliverables are available for each funding stage?

52. Is there a management review committee for project funding? Yes
No

53. Do you manage small projects as individual projects or as a program of work?

54. Do you have written standard process for small projects? Yes
No

55. Do you provide training to support the process requirements Yes
No

96
56. If you use a single set of procedures for all projects, are they modified for small projects? Yes
No

What are the major modifications that must be accomplished?

57. Do you ever out-source project management of small projects? Yes
No

Under what circumstances?

58. Have you ‘activated’ retired personnel for managing small projects? Yes
No

PROJECT CONTROLS
59. How do you handle small project change control?

60. Do you use any special project control systems for small projects? Yes
No

Please briefly describe the system.

61. For projects completed in the last twelve months, the average time from initial project idea for the project until:
Small Projects Large Projects

a. Funding Approval ____days +/- ____days ____days +/- ____ days

b. Mechanical Completion ____days +/- ____days ____days +/- _____days

62. For the small projects completed in the last twelve months, what percent of them were above or below the original funding
budget? Do you track the sources of the budget over/under runs when they occur?

More than 15% to 5 to 15% Between 5% over 5% to 15% 15% to More than
25% under 25% under under budget and 5% under over budget 25% over 25% over
budget budget budget budget budget

______% ______% ______% _____% _____% _____% _____%

63. For the small project completed in the last twelve months, what percent were mechanically complete ahead or behind the
original funding approval schedule? Do you track the sources of the schedule variances when they occur?
More than 90 30 to 90 7 to 30 days Between 7 days 7 to 30 days 30 to 90 More than 90
days ahead of days ahead ahead of ahead and 7 days behind days behind days behind
schedule of schedule schedule behind schedule schedule schedule schedule

______% ______% ______% _____% _____% _____% _____%

97
64. For projects completed in the last twelve months, the average cost as a % of TIC. Please provide a brief description or
explanation if the large and small project % is widely different.
Small Projects Large Projects

a. Engineering, procurement, management and administration labor ____% +/- ____ % ____% +/- ____%
(home office costs)

b. Construction labor is: ____% +/- ____% ____% +/- ____ %

c. Equipment and Material Cost ____% +/- ____% ____% +/- ____%

CONTRACTING

65. When do you use reimbursable contracts for small projects?

66.When do you use hard dollar contracts for small projects?

67. For engineering design on small projects do you use: a) in-house  or b) external design ?

What influences the choice?

68. Do you contract for construction management services on small projects? Yes
No

69. Do you have owner-engineering contract Alliances for: a. large capital projects? Yes
No

Yes
No

b. small capital projects?
70. Do you have owner-constructor contract Alliances for: a. large capital projects? Yes
No

Yes
No

b. small capital projects?

71. When do you elect to use an Alliance partner vs. traditional contracting practices for small projects?

72. Do you use vendor alliances for small projects? Yes
No

73. Do you use a single prime contractor or multiple-prime contractors for small capital projects? Yes
No

Which is the preferred approach and why?

SAFETY, HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT

74. In your experience, are safety and health requirements relaxed on small projects? Yes
No

75. Do projects have written site-specific safety plans? Yes
No

76. Do projects have written site-specific emergency plans? Yes
No

77. Do small projects use a site safety supervisor? Yes
No

98
78.Do you use a written safety incentive program for hourly craft workers on small projects? Yes
No

79. Are toolbox safety meetings required on small projects? Yes
No

80. Is pre-hire substance abuse testing required? Yes
No

81. Are small project personnel randomly screened for alcohol and drugs? Yes
No

82. What was the OSHA safety records for projects last year? Small Large
Projects Projects

a. The lost time accident rate (no. of accidents causing a lost work day per 200,000 hrs)

b. The OSHA recordable rate (no. recordable accidents per 200,000 hrs)

TECHNOLOGY & INFORMATION SYSTEMS

83. In general do you use automated project controls for Large Projects Small Projects

a. Project Scheduling Yes
No
Yes
No

b. Project Budget Control Yes
No
Yes
No

c. Project Productivity Tracking Yes
No
Yes
No

84. What new tools or technologies have you found to be most effective for small projects? Please provide product names
where appropriate.

Are these the same tools used for large projects?

85. Do you use automation in engineering work flow processes? Yes
No

86. For communications on small projects, what forms of automation are used?
Package Software (Prolog, Expedition)
Project web-page
E-mail
 Intra-net established for small projects team.
Others (please describe)

87. Is there other internal or customized technology being developed specifically for the planning, design or management of
small projects?

88. What new technologies have benefited small projects the most?

99
 MISCELLANEOUS

89. What are specific measures of success for small projects/program?

What is your current performance data for these measures?

90. What metrics are measured and maintained to track small project success?

91. Do you track CII Best Practices recommendations for project success? Yes
No

Which ones and how do you measure?

92. Do you submit your small project data to the CII benchmarking database? Yes
No

91. Do you maintain a lessons learned file for small projects? Yes
No

93. Based on recently completed small projects, what has gone wrong from a project process viewpoint?

94. Based on recently completed small projects, what has gone well from a project process viewpoint?

95. If you were to benchmark yourself against a highly successful small project execution organization, who would you
choose? Why (what is special or world class about their operations?)

96. What practices have you improved in the last five (5) years for your small projects processes.

100
APPENDIX C DATA

101
Org Number Operating As Primary Industry
1 Engineer Commercial Products
2 Owner Government Agency
3 Constructor Chemical
4 Owner Pharmaceuticals
5 Owner Pharmaceutical/Chemical
6 Owner Health care
7 Engineer Health Care
8 Engineer Mining and Refining
9 Engineer Plastics / Chemicals
10 Engineer Plastics Manufacturing
11 Owner Plastics
12 Owner Government Agency
13 Owner Steel
14 Engineer Chemical Plants
15 Owner Chemicals
16 Owner Petrochemical Process Plants
17 Owner Metals Manufacturing
18 Engineer Chemical
19 Engineer & Constructor Industrial/Process
20 Owner Building Construction/Renovation
21 Owner Petrochemical Processing
22 Engineer & Constructor Petroleum & Chemicals
23 Owner Chemicals Processing
24 Constructor Petroleum & Chemicals
25 Engineer & Constructor Petroleum & Chemical
26 Engineer Petrochemicals
27 Engineer Consumer Products
28 Engineer Steel
29 Constructor Heavy Industrial/Petrochemical
30 Engineer & Constructor Process
31 Engineer Chemicals, Refining and Petrochemicals
32 Engineer Refining
33 Constructor Pulp and Paper
34 Constructor Pulp & Paper and Chemicals
35 Engineer Pulp and Paper
36 Engineer Microelectronics Manufacturing

102
Org Number F-1a F-1b Decision Process F-2a Logistics challenges F-2b Deliverables
Planning
Detail
1 Less 1. Manager approval vs. Same number of persons involved for large and
2. Committee approval. small project.
3. Project size. Small ="40,000".
2 Less Large projects require U.S. congress funding None - projects are all fully designed. Cannot be "less" 100% complete set of
and project approval. Design - Bid - Build process specifications and drawings - no difference.
Small projects do not.
3 Less Estimate serves as plan and budget
4 Less Decision process is same. Decisions surrounding business cases involve Business case --- same
Planning process is same. "known" but "unassumed" information for XXX. Also
risk levels are lower and decision making less.

5
6 Less Approval documentation is same. However,
large projects must obtain higher management
approval and being larger and usually more
complex, take longer to prepare.

7 Less Lead times give us the greatest challenge Less formalized scope documents
(specifications, drawings, etc.)
8 Less Since all sites are remote from the hub, there are See division analysis work process
generally time & money constraints related to each deliverable
small projects
9 Same Comparable to large projects Small projects do not have the money to support the Project objective letter - greater detail
infrastructure that large projects have such as a required for small projects.
scheduler.
10 Less
11 Same Our split is less than $250M, $250M - $5MM Sharing resources with ATO work or multiple projects Similar, but with less complexity
and over $250MM. Process for all above is the biggest challenge.
$250M is the same. Under $250M different
process that is slightly less rigid, but may
design complete at authorization.

12 Same Planning process; budgeting as part of that, No different, same procurement, same personnel
detailed requirements development and for perform all work (small and large) the overhead is
technical aspects; PDRI in design, construction larger. P3 report, project approval documents,
with alliances as a rule. requirements report, to package for PM.

13 Less Discuss appropriation process. Small - more detailed time on owner part- multiple Small - estimate /scope; in-house intensive.
Prioritization per eng Large - major stray, $50,000 to $80,000; 5%

103
Org Number F-1a F-1b Decision Process F-2a Logistics challenges F-2b Deliverables
Planning
Detail
14 Same
15 Less Competing resources vs. dedicated resources
16 Less Project execution plan criteria PXP
17 Same In XXXX, projects $100k and above are Desired results remain too fluid and much resources Solution analysis. Summary agreeing on
considered "major focus" projects. A business time/money is wasted on false starts and changes. project scope /boundaries and the funds
case assessment is done by the asset owner to approval document (RFA). Same.
determine a value for the project. Engineering
is then charged to consider solution alternatives
that fall with in the business

18 Less Major equipment purchase funding is required Information flow especially vendor data. Design Simplified schedule, check lists, major
before project authorization. issues to meet specific construction need for S/D's. equipment list.

19 Less Very limited scope from client normally Much faster turn-around on scope/concept. Typical we develop
generated by individual scope/schedule/preliminary cost for proposal
client.
20 Less Large projects: planning staff submits to central Large projects deliverables: Justification for
office, then to OMB, then to congress for need for projects, cost comparisons for
approval. providing space via new construction,
Small projects: regional minor agenda staff renovation, or lease, scope definition, budget,
groups the project. It wants to do the next schedule.
financial year and submits to central office as a Small projects deliverables: general scope,
program for fun budget, and schedule.

21 Less Authority levels lower budget process; 1. SPS compete for refinery resources. Assume plant Very crude time frames for each discipline.
safety, 2. Environmental, 3. Pay out. forces for less than 1,000,000 and corporate more
than 1,000,000.
22 Less The decision process is generally the same for The biggest challenge is the time frame requirements Basic scope, approximate cost, tentative
both large and small projects. The main defined for most small projects. The project is deliverables, preliminary schedules. Different
difference is the time spent in each stage. The needed yesterday. in degree of complexity.
process moves from feasibility to review by
management to preliminary design to review by
management to final design to

23 Same Multiple small projects typically have multiple same

customers
24 Same Less time but same effort per TIC value less time - execution group juggling multiple projects Preliminary estimate / schedule --
streamlined formats
25 Less There is less use of formal work processes and Small project organizations and less structured and Many of the same deliverables are need with
procedures less formal. Project teams are smaller and are more less complexity.
flexible for communication, management of change
and control of interfaces.

104
Org Number F-1a F-1b Decision Process F-2a Logistics challenges F-2b Deliverables
Planning
Detail
26 Less Project engineers use what adds value. The Our groups support operation of the plant and capital Same engineer member (?) -PE had authority
small project process is flexible projects. Problems sometimes change dramatically. to select appropriate portion.
Chemicals side very small niche product.

27 Less Small projects are plant site generated and Less engineering & standardization Less engineering & standardization
plants lead the approval process.
$10mm, $5mm, <$100,000 plant manager -
budget limitation.

28 Less None - approval levels are the same less

29 Less The planning efforts depends on project size, It is harder to get supervision on board early enough Hand sketched schedule vs Primavera. Hand
duration and the criticality of the schedule. and to get them involved in the planning process. written budget vs. computer tracking.
Generally we find that clients give us less time Lack of time to dedicate to planning due to getting
to plan on small jobs. job off of the ground.

30 More diversity or expectations on PM. Fewer people

PM does more. Do not track out or estimated region.

31 Less Logistics for small projects is much less complicated The deliverables are the same. But due to the
than large projects. Large projects have significant quantity of deliverables on a large project, the
amount of large equipment that must be transported planning is much more critical. Detailed
by rail, ocean vessels, etc. customs, insurance, etc. written plans have to be developed on large
complicate things more. projects that are not necessary on small
ones. Small projects are more manageable

32 Less They are not different but are reduced in

detail with some eliminated.
33 Same Large projects get more expensive and assistance Deliverables are similar - more schedule
from owners than small ones do. details for large projects; often green
engineer involved.
34 Less Short lead time for design and procurement. Smaller Detailed execution plans and sourcing
staff with less front-end planning. strategies are not normally done.
35 Less Here prioritized 5 years capital plan, updated Limited time for project planning. Capital expenditure requests, capitalized
annually. Includes large and small projects. Mill interest calculations, spending schedule.
management gets priority of projects. Schedule
of capital expenditure requests on a quarterly
basis. Large projects typically are proceeded by
formal studies.

36 Same Refer to CII document for a great explanation of

small project vs. large project. We agree with the
document.

105
Org Number F-3a Risk Management F-4a F-4b Contingency Difference
Contingency
1 Same process. Yes
2 None process fundamentally the same.
3 Yes
4 Same --- not great No
5 Most of the work is handled through preferred contractors, master
agreements in place, rates in place contractor familiar with standards,
insurance in place, safety trained.
6 No
7 No
8 We use a Monte Carlo program to evaluate risk versus cost No
9 Risk are typically much smaller on small projects. Rarely do we have Yes
projects that have a high risk associated
10
11 Very little difference No All are risk based for specific project.
12 Different formal management plan is written for large projects - do not do No 5%; 8% overhead for services
that for small ones; more skilled workers on small projects.
13 Proportional to: 1) monetary value; 2) risk to existing process; 3) No About 15% across the board
complexity; 4) of week done
14 No Not time configuration.
15 No
16 No
17 typically, risk management software is used to define scope confidence as Yes Because of the statistical nature of small project evaluation, there
opposed to completed engineering is more qualitative judgment in the process.
18 Risk on owner side. Most projects not lump sum. margins are smaller for Yes Due to short duration, weather and deliveries if equipment have a
us. significant impact on MC date
19 More cost reimbursable work in general. No
20 large projects: Assume worst case scenario since funding is harder to Yes Small projects have a larger % contingency funds. Large new
replenish files and documentation are more important for defense against construction use 5% for contingency, large renovation use 7% for
claims. Small projects: Can assume more risk as funds can be contingency. Small projects have no limit other than funds
supplemented by cutting into program reserves availability.

21 No formal risk register.

22 In general, risk management is handled the same for both large and small Yes There is less upfront planning for most small projects.
projects and is accomplished by Phillips.
23 same Yes Usually slightly less contingency
24 No Small projects vary depending on engineering package. highly
designed. Higher depending on design(?). Cost plus % labor, %
sub/material, % start time. Performance constraints.
25 same No

106
Org Number F-3a Risk Management (continued) F-4a F-4b Contingency Difference (continued)
Contingency
26 Same. Risk analysis & management is done by project team. PE's are No
trained by two days course on risk analysis of core competency. Large
projects - value improving - processes.
27 Other plant projects can offset the greater risks for small projects. Yes Small project happen quicker & with higher site ownership.
Appropriation for small plant projects not charge some personnel time, not
an out of pocket.
28 Large projects employ budget risk analysis. Yes
Return (business risk) is the same

29 More is left to the field level and to the site level than to "risk managers". Yes It is usually larger as a percentage of the whole job.
We have to rely on processes and checklists on small jobs.

30 Value of client. Otherwise spend somewhat less time on GC biography on Higher level at budgetary stage . Similar hard distinguish at this
small project. level. Labor is our risk. Margin % or labor. Higher margin on
smaller projects.
31 Yes A single small oversight on s small project can absorb 10%
contingency. It may only absorb 0.1% on a large project. There is
much more room for error on a large project.
32 Yes
33 Similar No
34 More informal processes used. More "rule of thumb" than the large projects. Yes Less front end by owner and contractor.
Evaluate more informally.
35 Limited differences, utilize frozen technology. No
36 No No

107
3b. Risk Comparisons
Org. Engineering Factors Construction Factors Procurement Factors
Number
1 Same Same Same

2 Same Same Different Congessional approval if over $1.8

million
3 Different Same Different Short duration projects cause problems

4 Different project complexity and technology Different Project complexity and technology Same
much higher less known typically much higher, less known
5 Different documentation not as detailed Different Different Open order 'preferred contractors or
vendors'
6
7
8 Same Same Same

9
10
11 Same Same Same

12 Same Same Same

13 Different less detailed analysis on large jobs, Same Same
mildly different

14 Different Dedicated team

15 Different dedicated team Different Dedicated team to large projects.

16
17 Different more engineering completed before Different More in-depth constructablity reviews Different more detailed specfications for quotes
funding on large projects on large projects
18 Different Parallel design effort - changes impact Different lead time shorter to get equipment to site
and rework costs
19 Same Same Different more contractor procurement

20 Same Different Different small projects may be performed by ???

Contractors

21 Different Same Same

108
3b. Risk Comparisons (continued 2)
Org. Engineering Factors Construction Factors Procurement Factors
Number
23 Same Same Same
24

25 Same Same Same

26 Different Same Different small value small impact
27 Different higher Same Different site based procurement
28 Different less on small because more easily Different Less on small projects Different less on small projects
defined
29 Different usually less engineering Same Same

30
31 Different On small projects schedule of Different Easier to forecast and control small Different less PO's less opportunity for late
deliverables is easier to control projects. Can 'get arms around' the deliveries, QA problems etc. On larger
because there are fewer deliverables deliverables. projects a significant risk factor comes
into play with PO's from foreign vendors.
They usually do not compete on small
projects.

32 Different time required to interface with client Same

can consume budgets
33 Different more engineering by client Same Same
34 Different higher risk for scope growth Same Different short time frame

35 Different More detailed studies and planning on Different More auditing of manager utilization Same
larger projects on large projects.
36 Same Same Same

109
3b. Risk Comparisons (continued 3)
Org. Performance Factors Reg. Reqts Factors
Number
1 Same

2 Different more people watching Same

3 Different Same

4 Same Same

5 Different Same

6
7
8 Different contractor familiar with performance Same
standards
9
10
11 Different less time and money Same

12 Same Same
13 Same Same

14
15 Same Different more comprehensive

16
17 Different more effort expended for higher Same
investment
18 Different incentives are lower Same

19 Same Different Not as visible or rigorus

20 Same Different large projects have more procurement

regulations

21 Same Different Usually lowered by existing plant

110
3b. Risk Comparisons (continued 4)
Org. Number Performance Factors Reg. Reqts Factors

22 Same Same
23 Same Same
24

25 Same Same
26 Same Same
27 Different better than large Same
28 Different less on small because more easily Same
controlled
29 Same Same

30
31 Same Performance has to be managed the Same
same way on any project. Always comes
down to the quality of the people on the
project

32 Different requires micro management to maintain Same

control
33 Same
34 Different Lower schedule risk Same

35 Same Same

36 Same Same

111
3b. Risk Comparisons (continued 5)
Org. Health/Safety Factors Economic Factors Contractual Factors
Number
1 Same Different Does not have as extensive a Different Usually is not bid and goes to
review or justified standing contractor.

2 Same Different difficult to secure additional

funding in large projects
3 Same Same Same

4 Same Different Business/product risk much Different Alliance relationship lower ???
higher Work
5 Same Different Different Through electronic release against
master agreement
6
7
8 Same Different greater risk of running over Same
budget
9
10
11 Same Different may accept more intangible Same
savings on small projects
12 Same Same Same
13 Same Different less on smaller, given cash Different Less on smaller jobs; owner direct
flow and associated benefits buys and runs jobs, less risk.
14
15 Same Different check by corporate budget Same

16
17 Same Same

18 Same Different shorter duration

19 Same Different may not be as market driven Same

20 Different Deaths are more likely on large new Different Sufficiency of funds is more Same
construction likely to be a problem on
large projects
21 Same Different less money Different Pre-existing alliance

112
3b. Risk Comparisons (continued 6)

Org. Health/Safety Factors Economic Factors Contractual Factors

Number
22 Same Same Same

23 Same Same Same

24 Financial risks are fairly low
(as set up today)

25 Same Same Same

26 Same Same Same
27 Same Same Same
28 Same Same Different less on small projects because
they are easier
29 Different Same dangers less planning time Same Different less time spent reviewing small
contracts
30
31 Same Different on large projects you can Same
sometimes 'bet the company'
if you fail on large projects
the you can loose significant
dollars.

32 Same Same Same

33 Same Same Different large projects more lump sum

34 Same Different Higher risks on large projects Same

35 Same Same Same

36 Same Same Same

113
3b. Risk Comparisons (continued 7)
Org. Environmental Factors Political / Factors
Number Public
1 Different shorter review, must Different usually not as scrutinized
not change permit
2 Same Different Too many fingers in the large
pie
3 Same Same

4 Same Different labor impact for small project

far lower
5 Same

6
7
8 Same Same

9
10
11 Same Different Small usually have less
impact
12 Same Same
13 Same Different Less on lower profit jobs

14
15 Different more rigorous for Different local notice for large project
large projects
16
17 Same Different more effort expended

18 Same Same

19 Same Same

20 Same Different the public is more likely to

interfere with a large project

21 Different less impact not significant for

public knowledge

114
3b. Risk Comparisons (continued 8)
Org. Environmental Factors Political / Factors
Number Public
22 Same Same

23 Same Same
24 EHS risks the same,
increase safety risk
with workers in
operating plant

25 Same Same
26 Same Different Public does not see
27 Same Different less for small
28 Same less on small because more
easy
29 Same Same

30
31 Same Same

32

33 Same Same
34 Same Same

35 Same Same

36 Same Same

115
Org Number F-4c Small Con Ave F-4d Large Con Ave F-5a Review Checklist F-5b Checklist Copy
1 5.00% 15.00% No N/A
2 7.00% 10.00% No
3 5.00% 10.00% No
4 30.00% 30.00% Yes Yes
5
6 10.00% 10.00% No
7 10.00% 10.00% Yes
8 10.00% 10.00% Yes Yes
9 10.00% Yes Yes
10 Yes No
11 7.00% 7.00% Yes No
12 5.00% 5.00% No No
13 No Yes
14 10.00% 10.00% Yes No
15 10.00% 10.00% Yes
16 10.00% 10.00% Yes
17 25.00% 10.00%
18 10.00% Yes No
19 10.00% 10.00% Yes
20 10.00% 7.00% No No
21 10.00% 10.00% No
22 20.00% 10.00% Yes Yes
23 7.50% 10.00% No No
24 10.00% 10.00% Yes Yes
25 10.00% 10.00% Yes Yes
26 10.00% Yes No
27 15.00% 20.00% Yes No
28 15.00% 5.00% No Yes
29 10.00% 5.00% No
30 Yes
31 20.00% 10.00% No
32 25.00% 15.00% Yes No
33 5.00% 3.00% No No
34 8.00% 6.00% Yes Yes
35 10.00% 10.00% No
36 10.00% 10.00% No Yes

116
Org Number D-6a Con D-6b Con-Rep task D-7 Design Deliverables D-8 Meeting
Representive Frequency
1 No Flowsheet; Weekly
Piping and electrical schematics, process safety information.
2 No Plans and Specifications As needed
3 No Depends on timing and contracting strategy P & ID's, work scope, ISO metrics, line lists, etc.
4 Yes Not Specifications and drawings Weekly
5
6 No Drawings and specifications with progress review etc. Weekly
7 Yes same scope documents with drawings
8 Yes not different see contract book deliverable Weekly
9 Yes cost estimate (AFE quality), AFE As needed
10 Yes The constructor/planner will "walk" the job with the project Project objectives letter, scope of work, cost estimate, Weekly
engineer and operations/maintenance and give comments drawings/design and BOM.
11 Yes Same effort on smaller scale Scope, estimate, specification, drawings, vendorprints, schedule, cost As needed
control.
12 Yes PM is COTR; CM is consultant, involved in design the same Normal design document, study (special studies are prepared for field As needed
as a large project, but less interaction is needed. investigations before design, where need is indicated).
13 Yes Recent initiation to emphasize this. Drawings, cales if needed. As needed
More responsibilities may be by the project engineer. Field
engineer = part time.
14 Yes Weekly
15 Yes About the same with exception of dedicate people. No Weekly
16 Yes scale
17 Yes For small project, the role is more coordination with CM. For P&ID, process flow, equipment requisitions, vendor information,
large projects, this is more involvement in specifications, job construction drawings coordinated with CM.
packages, and contracts.
18 Yes Early involvement including review & preparation of project Same as large projects - specifications, drawings Weekly
estimates.
(Always a site representative involved. How ??? Varies
depend on site - some not as flexible.

19 Yes Same as large for disciplines, additional work in bid package Weekly
preparation and construction inspection.
20 Yes Government construction representive reviews the design on A/E investigates existing conditions and submits a report along with an As needed
small projects. Government contracts for a construction to assessment of the budget. A/E submits an intermediate design and
review the design on large projects. estimate. A/E submits final drawings and specifications, and a final
estimate.

21 No From 1mm to 2mm. Discipline packages: scope of work, drawing index, drawings, Biweekly
requisitions, cost estimate, schedule.

117
Org Number D-6a Con D-6b Con-Rep task D-7 Design Deliverables D-8 Meeting
Representive Frequency
22 Yes We have a more "real time" access to construction needs and Construction drawings, construction specifications, material Weekly
expertise. specifications, bid evaluations, P&ID's, MFD's, loop diagrams, test
requirements, etc.
23 Yes less formal constructability reviews same as large Weekly
24 Yes not a lot different, but also familiar with facility Similar to large - I have standard Weekly
25 Yes There is a single constructability coordnator for multiple Same types of deliverables. Less complicated report Weekly
projects
26 Yes None - same responsibility Weekly
27 Yes Much more multi-tracked role. More sketches & arm wave design. Daily
[98% Contractor, alliance in Construction and Engineering [No formal drawing, ISO metric. 0.5m - 1m drawiing, 1 set 1 process.
Corporate]. [Plant can choose: corparation alliance, sites PFEDs contracts. 2m may have building layout for large. HCC power.]
lookat prof?? suppliers.]

28 Yes none drawing Weekly

29 Yes Less formal meetings. Call up and ask questions. P&ID, piping ISOs, basic civil structural & electrical sketches. Monthly
30 No More on schedule (procurement less on construction).
31 Yes On large projects, a very formal constructability process is put The same as a large project. Weekly
in place. It is conducted on a more formal, sign off type
manner. On small projects, it is conducted on a more informal
basis.

32 Yes They vary all over the map depending on the customers requirements. Weekly

33 No Some (about 10% of designs) required. Safety - maintenance review Monthly

34 Yes Cost reimbursable. N/A - Generally less detailed level of internal review. Individual vs. Weekly
We do get involved in front end. team (Better job).
35 No P + ID's, loop sheets, meter elementeries, foundation/steel drawings. Monthly

36 Yes Larger project require more due to size. Essentially the same specification and drawings. Weekly

118
Org Number Operating As D-9 Productivity
1 Engineer Manhours, milestones
2 Owner Design progress reviews. Monthly project payment meetings
3 Constructor
4 Owner Budget, schedule, functionality, customer satisfactory. Hit targets for each
5 Owner
6 Owner estimate of % complete
7 Engineer

8 Engineer
9 Engineer The number of projects completed per year. We plan to expand this
10 Engineer Manhour budgets are estimated up front and progress is measured against the manhours. Productivity is considered
finishing with less hours than estimated and within budget.
11 Owner % engineers home office, % materials vs. labors
12 Owner A-E/ none
13 Owner Manufacturer's drawings; Delivery; Start-up performance; FAT
14 Engineer
15 Owner ITC, % ASHO, %rework
16 Owner
17 Owner Engineer % TIC; $/hr; customer satisfaction survey, overhead.
18 Engineer JBEK tracks engineer & home office (E&HO) spent vs physical complete.
19 Work hours by task against budget - same as large projects.
20 Owner None
21 None total cost tracked
22 Engineer & Constructor Productivity measurement is general have limited value because of the unique nature of design for small projects. Each
project is different.
23 Owner samw as large with less attention
24 Constructor Hours/drawings. Many with good organizations at approval - completion
25 Engineer & Constructor EPPR - performance -# of work packages issued on time
26 Engineer ?? actual cost and schedule, reasonable ideas, customer satisfaction. Measure of engineer, contractor - savings,
difficult to quantity.
27 Engineer Cost estimate & schedule.
28 Engineer none
29 Constructor
30
31 Engineer The same as large projects.
32 Engineer Cost, schedule, turnover, earned value, % engineering, accuracy of MTO's, safety.
33 Constructor % complete; design capital annual budget
34 Constructor
35 Engineer None
36 Engineer Earned manhours against planned manhours & spent.

119
Org Number P-10 Who Procurement P-11 Who expediting P-12 Procurement Paper P-13 Equipment Selection
1 Engineer Engineer Engineer Use standing contractor.
2 Owner Owner Owner Not
3 Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and
Constructor Constructor Constructor
4 Owner, Engineer, and Engineer and Constructor Owner and Constructor Not except ??? owner purchasing due.
Constructor
5 Owner Owner, Engineer, and Owner Standard/key vendor agreements for major/most used pieces.
Constructor
6 Owner and Constructor Owner and Constructor Owner and Constructor Some large project equipment is controlled by specially via competitive
bidding
7 Engineer Engineer Engineer Greater use of preferred vendors
8 The alliance The alliance Owner Yes, oriented toward compatibility with exist equipment & spares
inventories
9
10 Owner Owner Owner Typically use alliance vendors without a bid process. The materials are
normally off the shelf bulks. Bids are only used for large equipment and
vessels.
11 Engineer Engineer Owner same
12 Owner Constructor Owner No different
13 Owner Owner Owner Nothing major.
14 Engineer Engineer Owner
15 Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and About the same; large project has increased planning
Constructor Constructor Constructor
16 Engineer and Constructor Engineer and Constructor Engineer and Same
Constructor
17 Owner and Engineer Engineer Owner Selection process is same. For small projects, we tend to use a pricing
agreement and usually receive deeper discounts on large projects.

18 Engineer Engineer Owner Majority single source vs. competitive bids. Most single source vendors
(Alliance vendor ??).
19 Constructor Constructor Constructor Less process specific, can be purchased by contractor, owner often
buys few critical items.
20 Owner Constructor Owner Government specifications must be generic and allow for 3 bidders. GC
and subs contracts with vendors.
21 Owner and Constructor Owner and Constructor Owner and Constructor SSI for small project

22 Owner Owner Owner In general, the process is the same for both large & small projects.
23 Engineer Engineer Owner not
24 Engineer and Constructor Engineer and Constructor Owner not significantly different

120
Org Number P-10 Who Procurement P-11 Who expediting P-12 Procurement Paper P-13 Equipment Selection
25 Engineer Engineer Engineer more active involvement
26 Engineer Engineer Engineer more simple source
27 Owner and Constructor Constructor Constructor The plant has complete control.
Preferred vendor on large projects vendor selection.
28 Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and none
Constructor Constructor Constructor
29 Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and Rely on standard agreements.
Constructor Constructor Constructor
30 Constructor Constructor Constructor Reliance on known -less price competition on small project.
31 Engineer Engineer Engineer No difference. We normally solicit at least 3 bids and evaluate based on
that.
32 Engineer Engineer Engineer Not different
33 Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and Owner, Engineer, and Not really involved.
Constructor Constructor Constructor
34 Owner and Constructor Owner and Engineer Owner
35 Owner and Constructor Owner and Constructor Owner and Constructor Engineers decision, mill standards

36 Owner and Constructor Owner and Constructor Owner and Constructor Same

121
Org Number P-14a Equipment P-14b Common Equipment P-15a Equipment P-15b Equipment P-16 Equipment Deliverables
Bidding Deliverables Different
1 No No Yes Milestone
2 Yes Design/bid/build concepts Yes No
3 Yes Detailed specifications - for equipment we as Yes No
contractor purchase.
4 Yes Functional specifications, Detailed Yes - documentation; No - No $/del schedule
specifications, and Design/build concepts spares, training.
5 Yes Functional specifications and Detailed separate, stockroom Standards to standardize stocked
specifications spare parts
6 Yes Detailed specifications Yes No Shop drawings, equipment cuts
7 Yes Detailed specifications No Yes Pre negotiated
8 Yes Functional specifications, Detailed specifications Yes No

9
10 Yes Detailed specifications No Yes Manufactures drawings are number
one. The next is the schedule for timely
site visits and follow up.
11 Yes Functional specifications, Detailed Yes No Vendor drawings, QA reports, use of
specifications, and Design/build concepts alliance systems
12 No Yes No Training, documentation and spares
13 Yes Functional specifications Yes No Minimum/usually. The lower value
equipment orders typically all more
performance reliable than large OEM's.
include "risk' language proportional to
histories / experience with a given
equipment commodity.

14
15 Yes Design/build concepts No No Cost, Schedule, Contractor selection,
Specification, QA.
16 Yes Functional specifications, Detailed specifications No-training; Yes- Yes
documentation.
17 Yes Functional specifications with vendor supplied Yes Yes
engineering
18 No Detailed specifications No Yes Specifications, design basis.
19 Yes Functional specifications Yes No

122
Org Number P-14a Equipment P-14b Common Equipment P-15a Equipment P-15b Equipment P-16 Equipment Deliverables
Bidding Deliverables Different
20 Yes Detailed specifications Yes Yes Government does not issue equipment
contracts. Equipment is bought within
the general contract for a complete
installed project. We no longer hold
Retainage on jobs on schedule, but
hold Retainage if late.

21 Yes SSI (strategic source initiative) - BIO to

receive orders for long time.
22 Yes Functional specifications and Detailed Yes No Complete clear specification defining
specifications precise functional needs
23 Yes or no Functional specifications, Detailed Yes No
specifications, and Design/build concepts -
Varies.
24 Yes Functional specifications, Detailed specifications Yes No I am not best to answer
- not a lot.
25 Yes Functional specifications, Detailed specifications Yes No 1. Good specification;
2. Good material requisition;
3. Good purchase order/ contract
26 Yes Detailed specifications Yes No on site inspection by PE, QA, QC
inspector
27 No Usually single sourced. No Yes Purchase order commitments.
28 Yes Functional specifications Yes No pre-equipment testing results,
manufacturing schedule with milestone
dates
29 No Functional specifications. Done by owner by Yes No
alliance vendor contracts.
30 Yes Detailed specifications Yes No Specification definition.
31 Yes Detailed specifications Yes No The same as large projects.
32 Yes Detailed specifications Yes No Drawing approval, compliance with
standards, ability to obtain second tier
materials from vendors in timely
manner.
33 Yes Adherence to Corp (IP) buying
contracts.
34
35 Yes Functional specifications No Yes Use of mill standards - limits number
not driven by cost best we can find -
LCC reliability. Lowest cost not issue.
36 Yes Functional specifications and Detailed Yes No
specifications

123
Org Number P-17a Site Visit P-17b SV Difference P-18a Team Member P-18b TM Change
1 No Engineer, possibly supervisor Contract audit, additional review depending on dollar
level.
2 Same. Visit depends on project Project manager. Nothing
and use Building manager
3
4 Yes Not Project managers and an design specialists No
included
5
6 Yes Commonly be the same Staff engineer and project engineer Same
7 No A few large projects require this Project engineer & discipline engineer No

8 Depends on type of Equipment deliveries are almost Usually materials manager, requisitioning No
equipment being always a critical path activity engineer & asset owner
purchased.
9
10 Yes Not as many and they are typically Project engineer - Then the engineer is Disciplined engineers would get the packages, split it
performed at the end of fabrication responsible for getting the necessary input. and perform a full assessment. The project engineer
rather than at "hold" steps along would review and approve the final results.
the way.

11 Yes If appropriate Area mechanical, engineering, People dedicated

construction, sourcing
12 No Varies - criticality is key - PM - each discipline which depends on Same, but more time spent.
transformer for example is project requirement.
required, agency will go to the
factory with engineers for large
and small projects.

13 Yes Negligible Project engineer If a full time team assigned, may have more operation
input.
14
15 Yes Same PTL, mech, (maybe process), procurement Not much
lead
16 Yes PE, buyer tech specialists
17 Yes large projects are more intensive Purchasing and engineering owner/leader. More plant customer involvement.
and formal.
18 Yes No different Engineering, customers & procurement No
19 Yes Same requirements for Project manager, discipline specialist. None
specialized equipment only.
20 No Not applicable to us. Tenant agencies contract for their own No difference for large projects
furniture, A/E reviews and approves house
equipment

124
Org Number P-17a Site Visit P-17b SV Difference P-18a Team Member P-18b TM Change
21 No Contractor/user Corporate specialist included
22 Depends on the type No difference in general XXXX procurement,XXXX project engineer, For an EPC project, less direct "hands-on" involvement
of equipment cost, design project coordinator, design with client personnel.
comp-yes/no disciplines, phillips operations &
maintenance.

23 Operations representative, project

manager, engineering manager,
specialists.
24 Yes Usually not volume - not all Owner / Engineer Large critical fabricated or modularized equipment
projects require construction would be involved.
25 Yes same Discipline engineer responsible, project Nothing
engineer, owners, project manager,
procurement manager
26 Yes none plant specialists, design engineers operations would be involved
27 Yes Less for small projects. Plant representative, project manager, More technical review.
construction.
28 Yes No difference All stake holders No change
29 No Usually only the project engineer moving A large job holds normally bring in more people in the
toward third party engineer. (owner). review.
30
31 Yes No difference Package Engineer, Purchasing Nothing
Representative, Project Engineer, Project
manager.
32 No Sometimes. Depends on the cost Procurement, process, project, No
and/or critical nature of the mechanical/electrical, reliability
equipment.
33 No Large equipment gets visits Owner Nothing.
XX- more by themselves, lump-sum.
XXX - Do get involved.
34 Yes Frequently at request or owner.
We do some shop inspection to
witness shakedowns.
35 Yes Usually no site visits and FAT's on Project engineer has main responsibility, Corporate purchasing involved > 50k.
critical equipment. purchasing involved.
The large projects usually have
site visit and FAT's on critical
equipment.

36 Yes

125
Org Number C-19 Owner Rep C-20a In-house Force C-20b Small F-Type C-20c Large F-type
1 Part time No Union Union
2 Not on site No
3 Full time Depends on job Union Union
4 Depends on site/project No Union -80%, merit and nonunion Union and merit and Nonunion
5 Full time Yes Nonunion - Electrician, piping, controls, insulation. Nonunion
6 Part time No Merit Merit
7 Part time Yes
8 Part time Yes
9
10 Part time Yes Nonunion Nonunion
11 Full time Yes Merit Merit
12 Full time Yes Union Union
13 Part time No - 75%; Yes - 25% Union Union
14
15 Full time Yes Nonunion Nonunion
16
17 Full time Yes Union Nonunion
18 Full time Yes Nonunion Nonunion
19 Part time Yes Union
20 Part time No
21 Part time Yes
22 Full time Yes
23 Part time No Nonunion Nonunion
24 Full time Yes Merit Merit
25 Part time
26 Full time Yes Nonunion Nonunion
27 Full time No Merit Merit
28 Part time Depends on No-90%, Yes-10% Union Union and merit
29 Part time Yes Union Union

126
Org Number C-19 Owner Rep C-20a In-house Force C-20b Small F-Type C-20c Large F-type
30 Not on site No Nonunion Informal
31 Part time Yes Nonunion Nonunion
32 Full time Yes Nonunion Nonunion
33 Full time Merit Merit
34 Full time No Merit Merit
35 Full time No Union and Nonunion Union and Nonunion
36

127
Org Number C-21 Change Manage C-22 Productivity
1 Management of change procedure. Milestone
2 Project manager determines need, performs, estimate, secures funding, has
contracting XXXX authorize work.
3 XXX process
4 Change proposal --- review design - customers / PM - approval % time constructing (47%)
5
6 Scope change authorization procedure. Progress payments reviewed by site engineer.
7 Similar to large projects, change orders cost of quality report
8 Through the alliance management of change procedure
9
10 Coordinated by the project engineer via a cost trend / change order system. Manhours against original estimate.
11 Some as large projects Some as large projects
12 Same process - field change requirement - budget authority, negotiation, contract Time and money, safety and quality
modification.
13 Written contracts claim form - All extras, sign off - field engineer/ project engineer. Owner craft effeciency; consultant performance; cost;
schedule; quality; relative success; benefits upon completion.

14
15 Project proceedings, NOC, PCNweekly team meeting; monthly meeting ITC, % ASHO, % rework
16
17 This is major weakness in all our processes. An asset owner representative can usually Rework, installed quantities, hours vs. estimate, schedule,
for changes with little review. We do have a variance control process that is effective milestones met.
when used.
18 No changes. Notices by design & field change request (FCR). Changes are authorized E & HO, FL
(or not) by PM & PTL (Plant team leader).
19 Same as large . Engineering change notices, field order, etc.
20 Change are requested by client or contracting officer's representative. The change is none
drafted and negotiated by the COR, and ordered by the COR or contracting officer
depending on dollar amount. Funds are certified available by various people depending
on w

21 not aware of any. Total cost tracked

22 We have an established change order /cost trend program Feet of conduit, wire, pipe installed. Tons of steal installed,
yds of concrete installed. Most of the measurements for large
projects are measured for small projects.

23 change order system same as large same as large

24 Trend or change process Estimate versus budget, typical commondity, Unit rates
(U/R), Work force sampling.
25
26 CT/CO process actual cost and schedule, ideas, customer satisfaction

128
Org Number C-21 Change Manage C-22 Productivity

27 Mostly T&M appropriates. Typically fully reimbursable 85 -90%. Safety, end dates, labor hours preestimate, $ per estimate.
Looking at more lump-sum.
28 same as large none
29 Review with the job representative and the project engineer. Either track production vs. manhours spent or if it is small
enough, just track manhours against the plan.
30 Informal. Losses are not always collected - sacrifice change or potential changes Unit cost labor activity report, watcher, good job cost system.
smaller lack some documents - including construction change documents - small Do labor estimate based.
projects. PM. Super running job - can loose out on opportunity to collect due to
informality.

31 The same as for large projects. Variances are written and submitted for change orders. I am not sure what is used.
When approved, the work proceeds.
32 Use of variance and change orders See page 3. (But I can't find that)
33 Field change requests. Pretty much same change notices, less frequency % corp. vs budget, unit price, productivity/unit - existing area
stage.
34 Performance factor weighted % complete on labor (earned
value).
35 Sometimes use field change order form. No formal documentation or approval, if it Monitor construction progress. Track cost weekly. Not done
affects costs in excess of approved funds, engineering manager/M&E manager/other good on scheduling.
are involved. Indus passport.
36

129
 Org Number C-23a Meeting Frequency C-23b Other-Frequency C-23c Explanation
1 Weekly
2 Monthly Monthly pay meeting to determine progress. Additional surprise
site visits.
3 Other Weekly or more often if during outage
4 Weekly Once a week or once two weeks
5
6 Weekly Varies by project. Many have more.
7 Weekly
8 Weekly
9
10 Weekly
11 Daily or weekly As appropriate
12 Bi-Weekly
13 Daily or weekly Periodic - as required
14
15 Weekly
16
17 combination of daily and weekly
18 Weekly Teleconference weekly; face to face monthly to review costs,
issues & concerns.
19 Weekly
20 Other COR meets with contractor at least once per month and more
often if needed. The government team = assist director,
contracting officer, COR and local customer service
representative. The government team meets on an as needed
basis.

21 Other as required to address issue

22 Daily or Weekly Daily and weekly For turnaround projects -daily; for non-turnaround projects -
weekly for a while, then daily, then weekly.
23 Weekly
24 Weekly
25
26 Weekly
27 Weekly
28 Weekly
29 Other Weekly or in many case as well.
30 Daily
31 Weekly
32 Weekly

130
 Org Number C-23a Meeting Frequency C-23b Other-Frequency C-23c Explanation
33 Daily
34 Weekly < 3 month, Average 6-8weeks. Weekly - middle of week
following. Project review meeting 7-8days.
35 Emergency projects may meet daily. Most have no formal team.

36

131
Org Number C-24a Small DT Plan C-24b Large DT Plan C-25a Maintenance C-25b Separate Force C-25c Separate Track

1 Small projects timing is dictated by production. large projects by drive production Yes No Yes

2 Schedule must be kept unless extenuating circumstances. No

3 Yes Yes Yes
4 By operations Same Yes No Yes
5
6 Yes No No
7 Not different Yes No Yes
8 No
9
10 As you can get the equipment rather than planned years Yes Yes Yes
in advance.
11 Some. All must be integrated to master schedule Yes No Yes
12 Outage planning - same as large - several weeks advance No No
notice.
13 Usually done commensurate with planned overall Yes No Yes
downtime - not project driven. Large project opposite.
14
15 Fixed. May have more leverage to change No No Yes
for large project.

16
17 Fits into normal production routines for small projects. Yes No Yes
18 Work with plant operations to get S/D windows - small Yes No Yes
projects tend to have more impact on production due to
work in existing areas and multiple lie-ins to secures.
19 Yes No Yes
20 Work that would be disruptive to government. operations No
is restricted to non business hours
21 T/A Yes Yes Yes
22 Need for shut down is evaluated for both large & small Yes Yes Yes
projects.
23 no difference Yes Yes Yes
24 Negotiated with production No difference Yes No Yes
25
26 On the large projects, schedule has Yes No Yes
a ??? due to change in PE.
Sets of projects set for turnaround.
?? Major problem.

27 About the same, closely working with plant. Yes No Yes

132
Org Number C-24a Small DT Plan C-24b Large DT Plan C-25a Maintenance C-25b Separate Force C-25c Separate Track
28 All stakeholders participate no difference Yes No Yes
29 There is not as much opportunity to utilize this down time. Yes No Yes
30 Same Same - same as other Yes Yes

31 Down-time is during scheduled Turnarounds of the plant. This is no different than large Yes No Yes
projects except that large projects
usually are stand alone type
projects that don't require shutting
down a unit.

32 Tie in to turn around or use of hot taps to do work while No different No Yes Yes
operating
33 small must fit under large project outage time. Yes No Yes
34 Preconstruction; outage work; hourly schedules; downtime Yes Yes
tighter co - maintenance pay can be used.
35 Usually work around mill shutdown or planned down days No difference Yes No Yes
36

133
Org Number S-26a Master Plan S-26b MP difference S-27a Com Doc S-27b CD Difference

1 Process Engineer Engineer works with Consulting Engineer Team

Engineer
2 Project Manager
3 Owner Same as large project Owner Same
4 Design firm Not typically. Design firm Not typically
Small projects more commission than
large projects.
Some large projects ??

5
6 Commissioning engineer with staff Same Commissioning group Same
engineer
7 Constructor Yes, large projects use an in-house Contractor Not different
engineer
8 Asset owner's representative The alliance would assist in this work Asset owner's representative

9
10 Plant operations A full team supports plant operations Plant engineer Massive effort with many people

11 Owners team Size of team and dedicated people Owners team Owners team same but part time people
12 Owner - program manager The same as small ones PM Not different
13 Project engineer or operational owner Large projects more complexity, more Project engineer or operational Large projects more complexity, more
planning with OEM owner planning with OEM
14
15 Usually no formal plan large project usually has one (PTC) PTL/COD PTL - assigned team member
16
17 Engineer, area engineer (XXX), and XXX Little more formal but considerable Engineers Same
process Engineer. more detail from complexity.
18 Owner Owner
19 Plant staff Design team on larger projects. Plant staff with assistance from
Engineering contractor.
20 The designer incorporates the On large projects a separate A/E on large projects a separate commissioning
commissioning requirements into the commissioning agent works in agent works in conjunction with designer.
technical specifications. conjunction with the designer.
21 None Operators start-up team
22 XXXX XXXX & EPC contractor. Phillips Done by EPC contractor reviewed by XXXX.

23 operations not operations typically less planning and less formal

24 Normally owner with contractors normally EPC contractor with owner Normally owner with normally EPC contractor with owner
assistance assistance contractors assistance assistance

134
Org Number S-26a Master Plan S-26b MP difference S-27a Com Doc S-27b CD Difference
25
26 PE/ Operations training stand alone team Pe/Plant stand alone team
27 plant department representative start up engineer does it plant department start up engineer does it
representative

28 Project team - leads, equipment supplier equipment supplier leads with project Project team - leads, equipment supplier leads with project team
- support team support equipment supplier - support support
29 Client (owner engineer) Is not different same
30 Do have a start-up commission. Generally no major difference.
31 The plant (owner) No difference. The plant (owner) The owner usually seeks assistance from
the contractor.
32 Operations (usually unwritten) Large projects would be better Operation None
documented (archived)
33 Owner less formal Owner less formal
34 Condensed version of large project start- Generally own documents up to Condensed version of large Generally own documents up to completion.
up plan lead by owner. completion. Master plan similar to project start-up plan lead by Master plan similar to large. Process same.
large. Process same. owner.
35 Project engineer and operation None
representative
36

135
Org Number S-28a Doc Owner S-28b DO difference S-28c Archive S-28d Archive Difference
1 Plant None Designated locations None
2 Records center No difference
3
4 Design firm Not typically Operation Q.C. archives
5
6 Building manager Extra copy to facilities
engineering
7 same same
8
9
10 One person On a shared drive Not much
11 Owner Not different At the site No difference
12 PM owns documents Same on all projects Same for all projects
13 Project engineer or operational Large projects more complexity, more
owner planning with OEM
14
15 area PTC owner area PTC - assigned member
16
17 At plant. Same
18 Owner
19
20 The government owns the Both for large and smalll projects. Records are kept in office for Same for large and small projects.
documents. one(1) year, then archived to the
record center for seven (7)
years.

21 operations not different

22 XXXXX Design vault, control room
23 operations not maintainence less organized
24 owner owns documents no difference
25
26 operation same operation same
27 plant department very poor documentation on small projects

28 XXXX(owner) XXXX project

29 same
30
31 The owner owns the documents on No difference. Documents are archived by The same for large or small.
large and small projects preparing Job Books, etc. to be
turned over to the owner.

136
Org Number S-28a Doc Owner S-28b DO difference S-28c Archive S-28d Archive Difference

32 Operations (I don't think they are

archived)
33 None
34 Condenson version of large project Ggenerally own documents up to
start-up plan lead by owner. completion.

35 Project file and operations None

representative
36

137
Org Number S-29 Closeout
1 None
2
3
4 Not. Require closeout.
5
6 Smaller project less formal
7 same
8
9
10 Much to do vs. smaller task
11 Smaller volume of paperwork
12 Time and effort - varies depending on size, procedure same.
13 Nothing major. Mostly volume of documents, materials, and work.
14
15 PCN/COD closing
16
17 Few less personnel sign-off on acceptance.
18 No difference
19 Not normally involved in closeout on small projects.
20 No major differences except it takes longer to close out large projects.
21 same
22 Small projects are only different in volume of information to be closed out.
23 not
24 somwtimes as simple as one page form/walkthrough
25
26 Quicker, done, by note and close out of N & AEA report (samply).
Sap close out 60 days - shutdown.
27 less people involved & less documentation
28 none
29 usually a formal close out produre does not exist.
30
31 No difference.
32 None. But the ymay get assistance from engineering/construction contractor.
33 Less formal - final bill - normally cost plus.
34 Condenson version of large project start-up plan lead by owner. Ggenerally own documents up to completion. ?? Mastor own similar to large.
Process same. Union workforce plants - sometimes unions site workforce takes on work - abandons.
35 No difference. Log project file, equipment files, drawings. Will be implementing schedules. Jobs drag out.
36

138
Org Number PE-30 Staffing PE-31a Small Sta- PE-31b Large PE-32a Small PE-32b Large
Ratio Sta-Ratio Sup-Ratio Sup-Ratio
1 Resident groups
2
3 20.00% 12.00%
4 ???PM - A/E PM and ???? business manager - A/E ??? Manager 0.04 0.08
5
6 Usually by team leader 5.00% 8.00%
7 experience
8 By areas of expertise and availability
9
10 PE engineers are split to represent particular plants within the
complex. A project initiation request (PIR) is submitted by the plant
and is then assigned to the engineer. If the project is larger it goes
elsewhere.

11 Assigned across multiple tasks (not all projects) 5.00% 0.50%

12 Program manager selects, based on skill and availability 0.33
13 One person per project. Assignment per primary project engineer 0.46 0.10
discipline and process experience.
14
15 more thought and planning into large project 10.00% 10.00%
16
17 Try to utilize minimum skill rate necessary to competently perform the 10.00% 5.00%
work.
18 From a dedicated "small projects" team. Large projects "seeded" 2.20 1.10 20.00% 15.00%
with???? knowledge.
19 Staff from design pool, but certain people are better at small projects. 5.00 3.00

20 Personnel are selected based on skills needed, availability, and 2.00 0.20
proximity to project location
21
22 Small projects experience is desirable. However, both design &
construction activities are the same for both large & small projects.

23 personnel have area responsbility

24 availability, skills 0.40 0.40 12.50% 10.00%
25 Experience / workload
26 same group does both 1.00 0.25 17.00%
27 By plant operation department manager & plant engineer. 5.00 1.00 20.00% 10.00%
28 experience & workload
29 Usually made more on a basis of availability and geographic location. 2.00 3.00 20.00% 15.00%

139
Org Number PE-30 Staffing PE-31a Small Sta- PE-31b Large PE-32a Small PE-32b Large
Ratio Sta-Ratio Sup-Ratio Sup-Ratio
30 12.50% 20.00%
31 Staffing on small projects is done by shared resources. Personnel 2.00 3.00 40.00% 30.00%
may work on several projects for several sustomers.
32 Have an assigned staff on site that handle all small projects. From a 0.29
selection standpoint the project engineer in particular must have had
a reasonable amount of plant experience or field experience and must
be able to have a fair amount of general knowl

33 Usually on site. 0.12 0.18 20.00% 20.00%

40 - 60 people on site with craft.
PM -
Initiative; planning; captive audience.

34 Availability/skill matrix - formal and informal. 4.00 1.00 10.00% 7.00%

Most major positions compare to availability.
For people, we don't know.
PE role supt. Role to PM experience.

35 Blance work load between 3 mechanical engineers. E & I engineer is 10.00% 10.00%
assigned to support above and handle E & I projects.
36

140
Org Number PE-33a Team Steps PE-33b TB PE-34a PE-34b TB Difference
Percent % Team
Building
1 25.00% No
2 0.00% Yes
3 0.00%
4 Integrated planning for projects. 0.00% No
Single meeting. Operations. Construction. Design.
5
6 Engineering departments are dedicated to company divisions
7 Yes Small projects teams stay together. Large in most cases

8 We do integrate teams as much as practical. We have conducted

team building sessions at the hub as well as the site offices.
9
10 Organized meetings and encouragement by management. 0.00% Yes On small projects, key people work together to build a
relationship. On large projects there is organized team
building.
11 Broad X section organizational Representative 25.00% Yes Informal vs. formal
12 Contractors issue, not owner 100.00% No
13 Personnel remain assigned to a given process area to build 0.00% Yes Small - team established over time. Large - usually a 1x
continuous improvement project plans. effort
Informal relationships built with process area personnel over time.

14
15 regular meetings 25.00% Yes large projects are more forces … that the only job
16 0.00% Yes same project continuum
17 50.00% No Our personnel tend to be exposed together in many settings.
Team meeting schedules maybe more formal.
18 Skill levels, personnel availability customer desires 60.00% Yes No as formal as large projects. Same personnel on small
projects.
19 Use the same group on multiple projects for the same 0.00% Yes Very little and no formal sessions on small projects.
client/industry.
20 Our work culture has changed from functional to that of team 0.00% Yes We have completed our transitions into a team culture. We
performance. no longer attend formal team building workshops. Team
building efforts are still employed on large projects include
the A/E, CM, contractor, and clients.

21
22 Combined project kick -off meeting; identification of key interface 100.00% No
personnel; weekly interface meetings.
23 team meetings 10.00% Yes small is much less formal

141
Org Number PE-33a Team Steps PE-33b TB PE-34a PE-34b TB Difference
Percent % Team
Building
24 1.00% No
25
26 Teams are typical make up in business lines 3.00% Yes Low budget, pizza, BBQ , hats etc.
27 Very little 1.00% Yes Only the very large have to be.
28 Yes formal 3rd party team building for large projects
29 0.00% Yes Small - might be going out to lunch. Large - formal exercise.

30 Few - kick off manager. 0.00%

31 0.00%
32 Since we have been on site for a relatively long period of time we
usually get invitation to many of the learning sessions etc that tend
to help to team building experience, but don't have a formal program
for this.

33 On site people-reviews are here and work planned. 50.00% Yes Large project are dedicated to project.
34 Informal "joint-up" and project kick-off meeting. Usually both joint-up 10.00% Yes More informal.
with owner's team may be two: dinner + review + work
35 None 0.00%
36

142
Org Number PE-34c TB PE-34d TB Importance PE-35a TL PE-35b Tl Spe- Cri
important Criteria
1 Yes No
2 Yes No Project manager is totally responsible
3 No
4 Yes Yes
5
6 No
7 Yes/more
8 Yes
9
10 Yes No No, as a company. In reality it does take special skills/talents
11 Yes No
12 Yes, on different No No. program manager picks PM based on qualifications and
scale availability.
13 Yes More important on large jobs as participants likely less No
familiar with one another.
14
15 Yes No
16 Yes No
17 Yes Leader is usually picked from group or discipline from greatest
time involvement or special technical skill.
18 Paramount as "chemistry" between personnel key to Has to walk on water.
success.
19 Yes Yes Knowledge/energy/multi discipline/communication skills
20 Yes No The responsibility actually defaults to the assistant director of
operation center.
21
22 Yes Team building is more important. As "us & them" mentality Experience in some small project execution.
can enable a small project.
23 No same ass project manager
24 No No
25
26 Yes At a capital budget level. No
27 No Most of people work together on long term basis. Yes Know the operation area
28 Yes No
29 No No
30 No more flexibility person
31 Yes Must be very organized, able to juggle several balls in the air at
one time. Must be flexible, able to cancel and start projects with
little notice.

143
Org Number PE-34c TB PE-34d TB Importance PE-35a TL PE-35b Tl Spe- Cri
important Criteria

32 Yes Must be able to deal with an extremely large variation in types of

people from PhDs through the most junior designer, and
secretarial types both on your own staff and on the customers
staff.

33 Yes On site people.

Mill manager - ?? Attention.
34 Yes No Much more detailed ??. Very important…
35 No Project engineer and operations representative
36

144
Org Number PE-36a PE-36b PE-37 Career PE-38a PE-38b Traits
Incentive Incentive Copy Path Profile
1 No No No
2 No No No
3 No Yes No
4 No Yes No
5
6 No No
7 No Yes Yes Yes
8 Yes Yes Yes
9
10 No No No
11 No No No No Possibly
12 No No Yes No
13 No No Yes Yes Inherently, small project must be content with the philosophy of generating many jobs
simultaneously, and dedicated to continuous operational improvement - no real start or finish to
the program.Large = 1 major goal surrounded by more focus
14
15 No No No No
16 No Yes No
17 No Yes No
18 No No No
19 No Yes No
20 No No No
21 No
22 No Yes No
23 No Yes No
24 No Yes No NA
25
26 Yes Yes Yes
27 No No No
28 No Yes No
29 No Yes No
30 No No No
31 No Yes No
32 No No No In general, small project managers must be willing to put on the field clothes and look at the
smallest detail of a problem and deal with it right away.
33 No Profit/Safety. Yes No Past experience.
34 Yes No Stopped using - inconclusive rethinking.
35 No Yes No
36

145
Org Number PE-39a Skills Data PE-39b Data Same PE-39c Data Difference
1 No
2 No No
3
4 No
5
6 No
7 No
8 Yes Yes
9
10 No
11 Yes Yes Repeat use of people
12 No No
13 Yes Yes Inherently, better talent is given larger, projects with more responsibility
14
15 No No
16 No
17 Yes Yes
18 Yes Yes
19 Yes Yes
20 No Division directors makes staffing assignments. We are small group and the director are familiar
with employee skills.
21 No Yes
22 Yes Yes
23 Yes Yes
24 No NA
25
26 Yes Yes
27 Yes
28 No
29 No I don't personaly our company does.
30 No
31 No
32 No
33 Yes Yes
34 Yes Yes
35 No
36

146
Org Number PE-40 Cross PE-41 Benefit PE-42a Turnover Rate PE-42b TR Difference
Training %
1 No A larger knowledge base can be maintained
during personnel changes
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes Process - automation 20.00% No
5
6 Flexibility, widened perspective
7 Yes Better communication
8 Yes Cross training allows multi-tasking to occur
therefore, not having to maintain a staff of
specialists who may not be fully utilized.
9
10 Yes 25.00% Same
11 No Team leaders and functional leads. Data
12 Yes Procurement, engineering discipline. 2.00% Same
13 No May couple a "weak" engineer with a strong 0.00% Low
maintenance reason.
14
15 Yes 20.00%
16 Yes
17 We rely on multitask skills for our small projects As an owner representative, our turnover is small. Our
alliance partner has 10-15% turnover
18 Yes Flexibility, maintain core personnel during how 10.00% 15% - 18%
project workload.
19 Yes Multiple discipline design and design staff in 10.00% Same
construction skills.
20 Yes Will be able to manage small projects more 10.00% Turnover rate for technical personnel is less than 5%.
effectively and with fewer people.
21
22 Yes Within both project engineering and the physical 10.00% It is slightly higher due to the frequency of change in
design disciplines cross training has served to specific needs on a small project.
increase a sense of project ownership and
tactical flexibility.

23 Yes 20.00% Lightly higher

24 Yes construction - engineer 10.00% Lower
25
26 Yes meeting change is 25.00% Larger due to development
27 Yes Multi-tracking opportunities 50.00% Higher

147
Org Number PE-40 Cross PE-41 Benefit PE-42a Turnover Rate PE-42b TR Difference
Training %
28 No need clarification 1.00% None
29 Yes Availability can wear more chats, do more About the same
things, provide better coverage.
30 No
31 Yes Small projects are especially beneficial to
younger engineers learning the business. They
are more "hands on".
32 No
33 Yes Flexibility 10.00% Smaller
34 Yes Procurement may do with project controls. 5.00% None
35 Yes If employee leaves or is promoted, do not have 20.00% Higher, engineering feeds operation & maintenance
an expertise issue; engineers are more organization
challenged, also.
36

148
Org Number PE-43a Reward PE-43b Rewad Difference
1 No
2 No No incentives, No rewards
3 No
4 No Salary tops ???
5
6
7 Yes
8 No
9
10 Yes Large project personnel get recognition and promotion. Small projects people are largely ignored. There is a popular opinion out
there that "large projects people can handle small projects easily but small projects people cannot handle the big ones"

11 Yes
12 No
13 No
14
15 Yes probably less for small project
16 No Exrelocation / expat
17 No
18 Yes None offered to small project personnel
19 No
20 No
21 use same system
22 No
23 No
24 No
25 Local people with years of project experience.
26 Yes
27 Yes Much less.
28 No
29 No
30 Measure of success - size of project. Some people like to be the same in the plant, but that is not always possible.
31 No
32 Not at this site.
33 No More timely execution requirements.
Services as requested from client.
34 No
35
36

149
Org Number O-44 O-45 Org Exist O-46 Small Org
Separate Org

1 No >10 years
2 Yes >10 years
3 1 - 5 years
4 Yes 5 - 10 years Small projects team. Regional engineer official with locals engineer With 5 XXXX PM's and our business manager
5
6 No 1 - 5 years Engineering departments dedicated to company division.
7
8 Yes 1 - 5 years It is a task force concept with discipline specialists being used as project owner. The discipline mix is evaluated and that
discipline with the most involvement takes the lead position.
9
10 Yes >10 years Largely a matrix organization. Supervisor = PE for PE + PE for PP + PE for SP + Larger Job.
11 No 5 - 10 years Special teams with matrix responsibilities.
12 No >10 years Matrix and integrated; sometimes difficult to determine who people report to since PM is not supervisor.
13 No >10 years Area project manager - entire process area. Project engineer - works for above; assigned one project. Assistance from
electrical, civil and construction staff (27% of department).
14
15 Yes 5 - 10 years
16 Yes 1 - 5 years
17 Yes 1 - 5 years
18 Yes 1 - 5 years Matrix
19 Yes >10 years Matrix use of discipline staff as needed or on multiple projects.
20 No < 1 year. We use a project tem approach. Special project teams are comprised of members from various involved divisions, who are
selected by the division directors.
21 No 1 - 5 years matrix
22 No 1 - 5 years
23 Depends 5 - 10 years
24 Yes 5 - 10 years matrix, cross functional team handling all projects
25
26 No 1 - 5 years matrix
27 Yes >10 years A lot of operating department personnel.
28 No >10 years Project teams equipment managed - teams located on site
29 Yes 1 - 5 years More talking about project file organization and standardization of deliverables. Alliance site - mix up small & large projects.
30 No Similar to large process, PM & Supervisor.
31 Yes Matrix
32 1 - 5 years Matrix
33 Yes < 1 year On site staff advancement as necessary.
34 Yes >10 years Special teams
35 No >10 years Project engineer, operation department representative, sometimes maintenance representative, sometimes use outside
engineers as a project team. Department supt's of affected departments select representative.
36

150
Org Number O-47a Core Group O-47b Core O-48a Separate O-48b O-49a O-49b Continuity
Location Office Separate Staff Permanent Force
1 Yes Yes
2 No
3 No Yes No Yes
4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes As best we can - temporary work assign
5
6 No
7 Yes Yes Yes
8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
9
10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Stable work load
11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes With difficulty
12 No- Every body is expected Yes We select based on skill and availability.
to do everything.
13 No No Yes Ongoing continuous volume. Endeavor to equally distribute.
14
15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes OK
16 Yes Yes Yes View as one project.
17 Yes Yes
18 Yes Yes No Yes Alliance contract
19 No No No No Client based
20 No No Yes Continuity is not being maintained because we are undergoing
reorganizations. The lack of continuity is a problem.
21 Yes No
22 No No Yes Yes This organization resides at the XXXXX complex. It is a
permanent team where experienced personnel run the projects
23 Yes Yes Yes
24 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes local workforce - project location does not change
25
26 Yes Yes No No Yes Manpower leveling
27 No No Yes on going work load
28 Yes personnel is not generally change during a project
29 No No No No Alliance site - mix up small & large capital projects.

30 No No No Client with PM/engineer relationship.

31 Yes Yes
32 Yes
33 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes With maintain work
34 Yes Yes No No Yes Work leveling and schedule integration.
35 No
36

151
Org Number O-50a Personnel Mix O-50b Explain
1
2
3 Yes
4 Yes
5
6
7 Yes
8 Yes
9
10 No Yes & No. Typically engineers receive OJT, although the small project work completed independently.
11 Yes When workload permits
12
13 Yes Mentor youth in a process group under an area process engineer.
14
15 Yes
16 Yes
17
18 Yes Where applicable - for example, CAD work
19 Yes
20 No
21
22 Yes
23
24 Yes
25
26 Yes
27 Yes
28 Yes
29 Yes Alliance site - mix up small & large capital projects.
30 Yes Same
31 Yes
32
33 Yes Hired on larger, now mold them on small project.
34 Yes Can be difficulty but long term relationships we can work with our client and team can help with trainees. New
hires go to small project teams on $100mm project.
35
36

152
Org Number PP-51a Small Funding PP-51b SF Deliverables PP-51c Large Funding PP-51d LF Deliverables

1 First step Only one stage After economic and preliminary review
2
3 N/A
4 Conceptual design. Conceptual package (design Same
manual)/design documents
5
6
7 After estimate & even prior to estimate
8 After completion of decision analysis same
9
10 At PIR & again at AFE PIR - cost estimate, schedule and Conceptual, feasibility, AFD, AFE
outline scope
AFE - detailed cost estimate
schedule and defined scope.

11 5% design complete (PPA). 30-70% design See chart Same but rarely more than 30% design Same
complete project. complete
12 Once capital budget is approved, funds are same We receive funding for the
available. whole project
13 Budget or firm equipment pricing; same Same
preliminary install engineer with
budget estimate.
14
15 Complete PDB Complete PDB
16 project arrow
17 Authorize a budget at each stage Business case, solution analysis, authorize a budget at each stage Business case, solution
RFA document analysis, RFA document
18 Approximately 30% design complete for CAC P&I, single lines construction quality,
estimate. equipment.
19 Preliminary engineering concept Designer development. Preliminary design, AFE grade
designs, ROM estimate. estimate.
20 GSA receives an annual budget of $10 million for The minor agenda staff decides First congress approves the project and
most small projects (some are funded separately). which projects to do, and which authorizes funds for design. Later,
quarter of the year to do them. At this congress approves a second sum of
point the program has been decided money for construction and management
and the projects are funded for both and inspection.
design and construction. However
the program is vulnerable to
additions and subtractions

153
Org Number PP-51a Small Funding PP-51b SF Deliverables PP-51c Large Funding PP-51d LF Deliverables
21 After preliminary estimate of -10% to +20%
22 Initial funding for feasibility and estimate up front. Scope, estimate, deliverables list, Feasibility, preliminary design, 35% Same deliverables but more
Final approval at approximately 30% complete and schedule / execution plan, major engineering complete complex
equipment estimate
23 same same same same
24 Most often a one stage process Two stage process
25
26 AFE, Per ADP AFE, Per ADP
27 at end of definition same, but definition is more for large
28 end of FE 3 = appropriation FE 1 = business case document same as small
(planned), FE 2 - proforma (planned)

29 N/A
30
31 It is the same for large and small. An estimate is prepared after the
project has completed the front end
phase. This estimate is used to
prepare an AFE that is approved for
funding of the project.

32 We use a 5 step process Various types of funding occur at No different.

each phase of these steps.
33 As PO's release As PO's release
34
35 +0/-10 estimate, SSCMP forms 1-3 +0/-10 estimate, SSCMP
system.
Cost driven
36

154
Org Number PP-52 Review PP-53 Small Manage PP-54 Written PP-55 Training PP-56a PP-56b Major Mod
Com Standard Procedure
Mod
1 No individual projects No No Yes Dependent on project
2 Individual projects No No
3 Individual projects Yes Yes No
4 Yes Both of individual projects and a program of work Yes Yes Yes Simplification of steps.
Reduction of volume of
information.
5
6 Individual projects No Yes
7 Yes No No
8 Yes individual projects Yes Yes Yes
9
10 No individual projects Yes Yes Yes We use the ADP process
which is adaptable to all
levels. ADP is written for
large projects. The
engineer has to be
experienced and confident
enough to know which
steps to ignore.

11 Yes Individual projects Yes Yes Yes Streamline activities more

check lists
12 Yes individual projects Yes Yes No
13 Yes Individual projects and as a program of work Yes No Procedures are geared for
small jobs. Most all
encompass large jobs.
Large jobs usually demand
enhanced project
management tools.

14
15 Yes Program Yes Yes No
16 Yes Yes Yes Yes simplification
17 No Individual projects in most cases - some clusters. Yes No Yes Less formality - shorter
duration tasks.
18 Yes Individual projects - Capital projects managed as individual Yes Yes Yes Use only what fits or
projects, Misc studies, estimates managed as program of applies
work.

155
Org Number PP-52 Review PP-53 Small Manage PP-54 Written PP-55 Training PP-56a PP-56b Major Mod
Com Standard Procedure
Mod
19 Yes Normally continuing program with consistent staff. Yes Yes Yes Trimming of existing
systems in general.
20 Yes Most small projects are managed as a program within the No Yes No
$10 million annual budget. However, some small projects
(those done at the request of a customer agency) are
managed individually to a specific budget tied to that project.

21 No individual projects Yes

22 Yes Individual projects and a program of work Yes Yes No We use both client &
contractor procedures. We
develop site specific
desktop instruction to
maintain consistency.

23 individual projects Yes Yes No

24 Yes individual projects Yes Yes Yes Tailored to specific plant
circumstances
25
26 Yes individual projects Yes Yes Yes combined steps
27 Yes individual projects Yes Yes No except less documentation

28 Yes individual projects No No

29 No Yes Yes Streamlining pick out
highlights of the owner.
30
31 Yes Small projects No No No
32 Yes individual projects Yes Yes Yes
33 No Both of individual projects and a program of work. No Yes No
34 individual projects - but reported jointly. Yes Yes No
35 Yes individual projects No No
36

156
Org Number PP-57a Out-Source PP-57b OS Cir PP-58 Retire Man
1 Yes Staffing needs dictate No
2 Yes No
3 No Yes
4 No Very rarely when the A/E has very trustful resource No
5
6 No
7 No No
8 No No
9
10 Yes We use XXXx as our float. They have PE's (XXX) that help us. No
11 No Coled but not out sourced totally Yes
12 No No
13 No Yes
14
15 No No
16 No not normally No
17 Yes Most all is outsourced Yes
18 No No
19
20 No We retain the management function in house, but do outsource for design and No
inspection services.
21 No No
22 No No
23 No No
24 Yes Yes
25
26 Yes workload dealines No
27 Yes during peak workload period No
28 Yes Yes
29 No No
30
31 No No
32 No No
33 No No
34 No Yes
35 No No
36

157
Org Number PC-59 Change Control PC-60a Special Con-Sys PC-60b System

1 Review with supervisor No

2
3 COINS, P3
4 Same as large. See Question 21. Yes Monthly project reports XXXX/XX.
All prepared for our administration review for XXX program.
5
6 Scope change authorization No
7 Similar to large projects Same as large
8 Through the alliance management of change procedure Yes
9
10 CT/CO system. No Same system is used . However, it is up to the PE to execute. PE
determines request/change to be required. A form is issued explaining
change/trend and approval is given or denied.
11 Change management process Yes Different cost system. vs. PCCS.
12 Same as large, through approval and procurement cycle with No Standard systems are being used, no special treatment for small projects.
official change requirement.
13 A formal letter or request for authorization (or if after the fact No Same as for large jobs. Monthly review of costs assigned to a given
- notification). capital project - commitments, expenditures, reconciliation - as well as
monthly forecasting - going forward to completion.
14
15 PCN, PDN, DCO Yes Complete system tracking purchases, labor and project cost.
16 MOC process Yes
17 Project variance notice. No Same for all. Engineer, purchasing, field labor, installed quantities.
18 Small projects control procedure . No change philosophy Yes Access data base for E&HO integrated cost & estimating system that has
unless unsafe or does not work. Manage change to +/-5% of integrated codes with Dupont cost system.
authorized project
19 Same as large Yes Abbreviated version of large project system
20 Changes are managed by the contracting officer's Yes Projects are tracked through construction award and reported in the IRIS
representative. Funds are approved by a fund certification SXS (Computer Program). Once into construction, budgets are tracked in
official if minor, or the minor agenda staff if major. the NEAR system. We are currently revising and unifying our computer
tracking systems.

21 CT/CD (Cost trend / Change order) system No

22 We have an established change order / cost trend program

23 Change order system No

24 Similar to large projects but streamlines Yes Some simply list management. Some detailed labor analysis report (LAR),
project cost summary (PCS).
25
26 With construction contractor No

158
Org Number PC-59 Change Control PC-60a Special Con-Sys PC-60b System
27 via the project manager's control No
28 No difference - change control logs are maintained No
29 Extra work log. Conversations with project engineer & job Yes Our productivity tracking software (coins) standard QA/QC documents and
representative. other standard forms.
30 Project control
31 With variance that are approved as change orders. No
32 Variances Yes Use a summary work authorization log, and SAP.
33 Same as large No Cost reviews
34 We use a project change authorization (PLA) process. No
35 Indus Passport CMMS system, change orders to PO's/ Scheduling will be coming. Not there yet.
Contracts, monitor expenditures. Make sure it is s legitimate
change should not.
36

159
Org Number PC-61a-1 Small PC-61a-2 Small PC-61b-1 Small PC-61b-2 Small PC-61a-3 PC-61a-4 PC-61b-3 Large PC-61b-4 Large
Fun-Apr FA+ Mec-Com MC+ Large Fun- Large FA+ Mec-Com MC+
Ap
1 7 3 14 7 60 30 180 90
2
3 60 30
4 60 7 270 7 180 30 560 30
5
6
7
8 180 365
9
10
11 90 30 360 180 120 60 720 360
12 730 1095 730 1095
13 30 30 240 120 180 180 730 365
14
15 90 200 180 500
16
17
18 90 14 270 15 210 30 750 50
19 180 30
20 365 180 600 180 540 90 2555
21
22 60 30 180 30
23 237 499 487 1004
24 60 50 180 130 180 180 730 365
25
26 120 270
27 60 30 90 30 120 30 360 60
28 60 30 180 90 180 90 360 180
29
30
31 90 180 240 800
32
33 30 30 180 30
34
35
36

160
Org number PC-62a-1 PC-62a-2 PC-62a-3 PC-62a-4 PC-62a-5 PC-62a-6 PC-62a-7 PC-62b Track Budget
1 90.00% 10.00%
2 95.00% 5.00% No
3 20.00%
4 95.00% 5.00%
5
6 Yes
7 95.00% 0.00%
8 5.00% 25.00% 60.00% 10.00%
9
10
11 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 50.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% Yes
12 20.00% 60.00% 20.00%
13 No
14
15 35.00% 50.00% 15.00%
16
17 5.00% 25.00% 60.00% 10.00%
18 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 69.00% 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% Yes
19
20 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 40.00% 10.00% 20.00% 0.00%
21 11.00% 13.00% 16.00% 18.00% 8.00% 14.00% 20.00%
22 15.00% 80.00% 5.00%
23 7.00% 7.00% 20.00% 47.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.00%
24 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 30.00% 5.00% 4.00% 1.00% Yes
25
26 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 77.00% 5.00% 3.00% 0.00% Yes
27 2.00% 3.00% 15.00% 70.00% 5.00% 3.00% 2.00% No
28 5.00% 15.00% 50.00% 25.00% 5.00% No
29 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 50.00% 20.00% 10.00% 5.00% Yes
30
31
32
33 2.00% 5.00% 8.00% 60.00% 15.00% 5.00% 5.00%
34 15.00% 50.00% 25.00% 10.00% Yes
35 0.00% 10.00% 40.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
36

161
Org number PC-63a-1 PC-63a-2 PC-63a-3 PC-63a-4 PC-63a-5 PC-63a-6 PC-63a-7 PC-63b Track
Variance
1 0.00% 80.00% 20.00%
2 90.00% 10.00%
3
4 95.00% 5.00%
5
6
7 40.00% 60.00%
8 33.00% 67.00%
9
10
11 10.00% 20.00% 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 20.00% 10.00% Yes
12 10.00% 80.00% 10.00%
13 Yes
14
15 2.50% 95.00% 2.50%
16
17 33.00% 67.00% Yes
18 6.00% 94.00% Yes
19
20 0.00% 50.00% 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
21
22 10.00% 85.00% 5.00%
23 0.00% 9.00% 5.00% 19.00% 19.00% 29.00% 19.00%
24 2.00% 5.00% 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 40.00% 13.00%
25
26 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 60.00% 20.00% 10.00% No
27 25.00% 70.00% 5.00%
28 10.00% 40.00% 30.00% 15.00% 5.00% No
29 0.00% 10.00% 30.00% 15.00% 30.00% 10.00% 5.00% Yes
30
31
32
33 5.00% 80.00% 15.00% Yes
34 5.00% 90.00% 5.00%
35 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 30.00% 50.00% Yes
36

162
Org Number PC-64a-3 PC-64a-4 PC-64b-3 PC-64b-4 PC-64c-3 PC-64c-4 PC-64a-1 PC-64a-2 PC-64b-1 PC-64b-2 PC-64c-1 PC-64c-2
LEPM LEPM+ LCL LCL+ LEM LEM+ SEPM SEPM+ SCL SCL+ SEM SEM+
1
2
3
4 23.00% 5.00% 15.00% 2.00%
5
6
7 21.00% 2.00% 12.00% 4.00%
8 25.00% 3.00%
9
10
11 20.00% 5.00% 22.00% 5.00% 31.00% 4.00% 22.00% 5.00% 22.00% 5.00% 31.00% 4.00%
12 10.00% 45.00% 45.00% 15.00% 40.00% 45.00%
13 10.00% 5.00% 35.00% 10.00% 55.00% 10.00% 10.00% 5.00% 35.00% 10.00% 55.00% 10.00%
14
15 20.00% 30.00% 50.00% 20.00% 30.00% 50.00%
16
17 20.00% 5.00% 30.00% 10.00% 35.00% 10.00%
18 26.00% 2.00% 20.00% 5.00% 36.00% 5.00% 18.00% 2.00% 15.00% 5.00% 25.00% 5.00%
19
20 5.00% 2.00% 12.00% 5.00%
21 20.00% 40.00% 40.00%
22 25.00% 5.00%
23
24 20.00% 10.00% 30.00% 10.00% 50.00% 10.00% 30.00% 10.00% 30.00% 10.00% 40.00% 10.00%
25
26 18.00% 5.00% 50.00% 5.00% 37.00% 5.00%
27 30.00% 5.00% 20.00% 5.00% 50.00% 10.00% 15.00% 5.00% 35.00% 5.00% 50.00% 10.00%
28
29
30
31 15.00% 3.00% 40.00% 45.00% 20.00% 4.00% 40.00% 40.00%
32 18.00% 3.00%
33
34 15.00% 5.00% 40.00% 10.00% 45.00% 20.00%
35 15.00% 5.00% 25.00% 20.00% 60.00% 15.00% 60.00% 20.00% 40.00% 20.00%
36

163
Org Number CO-65a CO-65b W-Reimbursable CO-66a Hard CO-66bW-Hard Dollar
Reimbursable Dollar
1 Yes When schedule and design details are not available Yes When schedule details are known
2 Yes When agency wants a project but GSA has no funds Yes Standard procedure
for it, agency will provide RWA
3
4 Yes At most sites Engineer/Constructor 95%+. Yes Same for design build or lab/administration ???. Also at
remote sites. Engineer/Constructor 5%-.
5 Yes When scope is not clear or documentation costs Yes When scope is defined or project too small to track TIM
outweigh, higher mark ups
6 Yes Hard to define work Yes Usual method used
7 Yes Scope helps to define lead times Yes Scope helps to define lead times
8 Yes All work is cost reimbursable
9
10 Yes Always due to alliance contract Yes Only on unique equipment installation that the alliance
contractor can't handle.
11 Yes 95% of time XXXX Yes 5% based on scope
12 No We don't use reimbursable contracts Yes We always use fixed price contracts
13 Yes Use on construction when a high degree of Yes Most times on equipment
indeterminate scope exists. For equipment, rarely.
Scope is usually definable enough to press lump-sum
competitiveness depending on contract. For eng, 100%
reimbursable.

14
15 Yes Most XXXX Yes Building, XXXX
16 Yes almost always Yes well defined specialties
17 Yes all No
18 Yes Site construction only Yes Specific crafts that alliance contractor can not supply.
Concrete & steel work (sub concrete specialty), railroads etc.

19 Yes Using existing in plant contractors. Yes Most projects if time is available.
20 No Never - All are fixed price Yes Always
21 Yes alliance
22 Yes All alliance design which is tracked against estimates No within our alliance we do not use hard dollar contracts

23 Yes always No never

24 Yes Scope not defined. All currently No Rarely - usually if offsite (Partnered, etc.)
25
26 Yes 100% No 0%
27 Yes most of time (75-90%) Yes 10-25%
28 Yes poorly defined scope Yes well defined scope

164
Org Number CO-65a CO-65b W-Reimbursable CO-66a Hard CO-66bW-Hard Dollar
Reimbursable Dollar
29 Yes With alliance vendors to expedite the process. Yes Specialty contractors or if the budget is very tight.
30
31 Yes Almost always. No Seldom
32
33 Yes Mostly. Small project line. Yes Small amount.
34 Yes Poor scope definition or rapid response. Primarily, most Yes Good definition or repeat work. Speed I s important. 10% -
reimbursable. 15% ??
35 Yes 75% of time, fast projects. Yes 25% of time, use on projects with limited "unknowns".
36

165
 Org CO-67a Eng-Design CO-67b Influence CO-68a CM CO-68b Explanation
Number
1 both in-house and Staffing resources No
external design
2 external design GSD policy Yes Sometimes. When project manager is loaded
with projects
3 external design No
4 No influences. Yes Sometimes but rarely are from construction
contract.
5 in-house Contracting outside A/E too time consuming No Site engineer may not be XXXX employee but
acts on behalf.
6 in-house Efficiency No
7 in-house Turnaround time No
8 both in-house and Specialty services, such as engineered equipment are out No
external design sourced
9
10 both in-house and The workload of the in-house people. If their work load is too No
external design high, jobs are shifted to KBR.
11 external design Alliance contractors Yes
12 external design Mostly the criticality of a project, if it is very sensitive, we would Yes
like to retain control and we use our in-house staff 10% in
house; 90% external on projects, large and small.
13 external design Usually develop conceptual or functional requirement in house Yes Full time on site construction service staff.
due to ongoing operator/process expertise; then rely on
equipment supplies to generate designs externally.
14
15 in-house Alliance agreement No
16 both in-house and completely No
external design
17 both in-house and Vendors supply some engineered equipment Yes XXX/XXXX
external design
18 in-house Alliance contract No Owner
19
20 external design We do not have in house design capability. No
21
22 both in-house and unless some specialistl technology or skill is required, we use No
external design our site personnel. Otherwise home office personnel are called
in.
23 external design resources No
24 external design Current wisdom - want staff flexibility to out source Yes
25

166
 Org CO-67a Eng-Design CO-67b Influence CO-68a CM CO-68b Explanation
Number
26 in-house In house alliance contractor No
27 external design XXX has very little in-house design Yes
28 external design we have limited in-house resources Yes As dictated by complexity of field conditions

29 both in-house and Availability of resource No

external design
30 external design Engineer ** - understands known relationships. No
31 in-house No
32 in-house Alliance
33 in-house Size No
34 both in-house and Availability of resources or specific expertise.
external design
35 both in-house and Current workload or expertise in an area is needed. I.e. No
external design Civil/structural, have none on staff.
36

167
Org Number CO-69a OE Large CO-69b OE Small CO-70a OC Large CO-70b OC Small CO-71 Partner

1 Yes Yes No Yes

2 No No No No
3 Yes
4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 98% useless. They don't have resources and don't have skills.
5 Yes Yes Yes Most of the time
6 No No Yes Less than $10,000 or needed skills
7 Yes Yes Yes Yes
8 No Yes No Yes Won't
9
10 Yes Yes No No Job less than 50 million.
11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Guideline for 95% of applications
12 No No Yes Yes As mentioned before, we would like to use partnering on all projects, so far we
do it with contractors who have previously worked with us in that day.
13 Yes Yes Yes Yes When a contractor is already on site doing other work.
14
15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Special (technology) expertise, total cost
16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Specialty projects
17 Yes Yes Yes Yes Always alliance
18 Yes Yes Yes Yes Resource limitation or cost advantages
19
20 No Yes No Yes We use XXXX designers for all small projects. We use XXX constructors for
interior space renovations. We use trade contracts for roofs and MEP projects.
21
22 Yes Yes Yes Yes We always use the alliance partner unless a unique specialty is required
23 Yes Yes Yes Yes Alliance partner - standard choice
24 No Yes No Yes $ value, % retrofit, greenfield
25
26 Yes Yes Yes Yes Always
27 Yes Yes Yes Yes If small is a specialty area (roofing)
28 Yes No Yes No When alliance partner provides proven technology advantage
29 Yes Yes Yes Yes Mostly all alliance at this site.
30 Yes Yes
31 No Yes No No
32
33 Yes No Yes Yes How well scope defined. Still more reimbursement IP - National contracts -
piping/equipment.
34 Yes
35 No No No No
36

168
Org Number CO-72 CO-73a Prime Con CO-73b Prefer CO-73c Why
Vendor
1 Yes No
2 No Yes Single Prime Contractor Single prime, one source of responsibility
3
4 Yes Single Prime Contractor Economy.
5 Yes No Three or more preferred Availability, suitability familiarity With site owner's representive.
6 Yes No In house CM, 15-20contracts
7 Yes Yes Multiple Prime Contractor We are GC. It gives us control
8 Yes Yes Location 1- single prime Location 2 - multiple prime
9
10 Yes No
11 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor
12 No Yes Single Prime Contractor less risk and overhead to manage.
13 Yes Yes Align capabilities and use competencies to major crafts required - via competitive bidding.
14
15 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor Eliminate training
16 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor less interface, less resource
17 Yes Yes Send experienced resources between plants.
18 Yes Single Prime Contractor Resident contractor
19 Yes Multiple Prime Contractor If possible.
20 No Yes Single Prime Contractor On large projects we sometimes issue the elevator work as a separate contract and include
9 years of maintenance service.. Single is preferred. It limits claims from multiple
contractors interfering with one another.
21
22 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor Better communication is usually the result of using a single prime contractor
23 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor
24 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor lower administration costs - improved XXX knowledge
25
26 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor selected alliance
27 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor less interfaces to manage
28 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor Not staffed to act as general
29 Yes Yes Multiple Prime Contractor Civil/Structure/Mechanical/Electrical.
30 Yes
31 Yes
32 Yes Single Prime Contractor Probably more effective utilization of overhead personnel for one reason. Have to ask the
customer.
33 Yes Yes Single Prime Contractor Similar representative..
34
35 Yes Yes Multiple Prime Contractor Reduce project cost for sub-contract markup.
36

169
Org Number SH-74 SH-Req SH-75 Safety SH-76 Emer. SH-77 Saf SH-78 Saf- SH-79 Saf-Met SH-80 SH-81
Plan Plan Sup Inc Pre-test Drug Test
1 No Yes Yes No No Yes No
2 No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
3 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
4 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
5 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
6 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
7 No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes
8 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
9 Yes
10 No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
11 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
12 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No
13 No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No
14 Yes
15 No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
16 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
17 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
18 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
19 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
20 Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
21 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
22 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
23 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
24 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
25 Yes
26 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
27 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
28 No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
29 No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
30 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
31 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
32 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
33 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
34 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
35 No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
36

170
Org Number SH-82a-1 Small Time-R SH-82b-1 Small OSHA-R SH-82a-2 Large Time-R SH-82b-2 Large OSHA-R
1
2 0.00
3 0.00 4.60
4
5 1.17 5.00 1.17
6
7
8
9
10
11 0.11 0.58
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13
14
15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16
17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19
20
21 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.02
22 0.00 0.00
23 0.00 1.33
24 1.80 1.80
25
26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
27 0.03 0.80 0.30 0.80
28 0.40 3.46
29 0.20 0.50
30
31
32
33 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.00
34 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.25
35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
36

171
Org Number T-83a-1 Large T-83b-1 Large T-83c-1 T-84a New Tools T-84b Tools T-84c Tools Difference
PS PBC Large PPT
1 Yes Yes No Microsoft Project Yes
2 Yes Yes Yes
3
4 Yes Yes Yes lotus notes, Primavera (Scheduling), Microsoft Project, 3d Yes
CADD, Elect calendaring.
5
6 Yes Yes No
7 Yes Yes Radio communication (cell Phones) No
8 Yes Yes Yes Suretrak for scheduling
digital photography & "red-lining" software.
G2 for estimating
9
10 Yes Yes Yes Access database by Oracle No
11 Yes Yes PDMS, PCCS (in-house cost control system) Yes Above $250M
12 Yes Yes No Microsoft project; NASA developed software, and Yes
FASTRACK
13 Use various independent tools:
Primavera.
Microsoft Projects.
SAP Business system.

14
15 Yes Yes Yes Microsoft office; primavera. Yes
16 Yes Yes Yes cameras
17 Yes Yes Yes Suretrak, digital photographs
18 Yes Yes Yes PDMS-3D modeling - very effective for piping & CES work large projects have used "facet",
which like a toolbox, 1-2 pcs use
purchase F&M estimate.

19 Yes Yes Prolog, web sites, e-mail.

20 Yes Yes Yes Beepers, cell phone. The price not to exceed field directive. Yes
maintain a running deficiency list. Two way RFI memos.
Involving O&M personnel during equip acceptance testing.
Easy access to equipment for services calls.

21
22 Yes Yes Yes electronic downloads of actual expended man-hours and Similar, but large project tools
invoiced dollars have made our budget control more "real usually define more complex
time" activities
23 Yes Yes Yes

172
Org Number T-83a-1 Large T-83b-1 Large T-83c-1 T-84a New Tools T-84b Tools T-84c Tools Difference
PS PBC Large PPT
24 Yes Yes Yes most built in house No
25
26 Yes Yes Yes lesson learned (lotus notes), primavera Yes
27 Yes Yes Yes
28 Yes Yes No PRIMAVERA
29 Yes Yes Yes No special tools.
30 Yes Yes Yes Procurement to real time. Yes
Cost & time or do requisite.
31 Yes Yes Yes
32
33 Yes Yes Yes
34 Yes Yes Yes Bar coding of tools, automated timekeeping, integrated Yes
schedules.
35 Yes Yes Yes Indus passport(15 modules) CMMS for purchasing, Excel Yes
spreadsheet for cost tracking.
36

173
Org Number T-85 T-86 Communication T-87a Other T-87b Describe T-88 New Tec-Ben
Automation Internal

1 Yes E-mail and Intra-net established for small Yes Prioritizing software between projects
projects team
2 E-mail, Fax, Telephone, Person to person No
3 E-mail and Intra-net established for small
projects team
4 Yes Project Web-page, E-mail and Intra-net 3d cadd, lotus notes, E-mail, Elect Calendaring.
established for small projects team
5
6 E-mail No
7 E-mail
8 Yes Project Web page and E-mail
9
10 No Project Web page and E-mail e-mail
11 Yes E-mail and Intra-net established for small No $0-5MM best practices and 6 sigma(?)
projects team
12 No E-mail Yes NASA developed software Cellular telephones; MS project; pagers; E-mail.
(FPMS - Facility project
systems.
13 E-mail Central electronic storage; Personal computer and subsequent ability to custom divide
common file access needed basic tools - punch lists, meeting minutes, cost
control, schedule - bar chart, etc. E-mail communicates
directly to all participants without need for formal meetings.

14
15 E-mail. Web-page is common sever for file Yes
document
16 E-mail
17 Yes APMS digital photo

18 Yes E-mail No PDMS has significantly reduced pipe re-work

19 No Package Software (Prolog, Expedition), Yes
Project Web-page and E-mail
20 Yes E-mail We are tying to develop Converting from a functional organization to a team
software that consolidates approach.
all present software
systems. One single
software for building data,
project information and
billing records.

174
Org Number T-85 T-86 Communication T-87a Other T-87b Describe T-88 New Tec-Ben
Automation Internal
21 E-mail
22 No E-mail The new tools seem only electronic tie-ins to areas where billings are originalted
to benefit "micro electronic access to technical expertise
management" and do not
improve the efficiency of
project execution

23 E-mail No SAP, web-based e-mail.

Live link: documents archival system and approvals
24 Yes E-mail We tailor our systems Web, not much in lesson learned. Constructability lessons
learned
25
26 No Package Software (Prolog, Expedition) and E-
mail
27 Yes E-mail and Intra-net established for small
projects team
28 No E-mail Yes PDS applies to all projects

29 No E-mail No E-mail, cell phones communications issues.

30 No E-mail Yes Cell phone Cell phone
31 E-mail
32 No E-mail and Intra-net established for small N/A SAP
projects team
33 Package Software (Prolog, Expedition) and E- No Fax, E-mail
mail
34 Project Web-page and E-mail. Internal MIS Yes Cost management system Schedule - 50 activities and sub portion down 50-100 in one
people group on site to use for cost/schedule (oracle); PCCS. window.
reporting/status and bulleting board.

35 No E-mail No
36

175
Org Number M-89a Success M-89b Measure M-90 Metrics
1 None Weekly/Monthly review
2 On time and on budget
3 Budget, schedule, quality, rework, safety.
Trotter Index.
4 Budget 97.9, function 94.7, schedule 95.6, customer See above.
satisfactory 94.1. Overall 95.6
5
6
7 We track quantity
8 Cost - getting the greatest amount of work from the
same amount of capital dollars.
9
10 Meeting budget. It works as designed met schedule. Tracking in Access database Few/none

11 Cycle time +-5% $Auth +0.09%, 16.5months., cycle Varies by business but usually IRR, cycle time,
Goals < 18months and 0.0 time %Auth
12 Schedule and budget performance 90% of projects are within 5- Estimating metrics - used as baseline - award vs.
10% of target estimate.
13 1) pick the correct jobs to support the business; 2)
successful functionality; 3) quality; 4) cost; 5)
schedule.
14
15 ITC, %rework, level of area feedback OK ITC %rework, % EFHO
16 Safety, ECI, cost.
Per monthly MCE, Quarterly reports.
17 Budget /schedule TIC, milestones met, customer survey, project
scorecard
18 ITC as a % of authorized project; actual MC vs. Refer to metrics % EHO, ITC, MC
planned MC
19 Work hour cost, engineering saving, TIC actual,
client satisfaction.
20 We have no measures for small projects. We do have performance
measures for large projects
(time and budgets)
21
22 Customer satisfaction, best price, on time, see matrix Budget variance, schedule variance, cost savings,
functional. customer satisfaction, safety performance.

23

176
Org Number M-89a Success M-89b Measure M-90 Metrics

24 Typical safety, budgets, schedule Safety excellent, budget -

good, schedule - fair.
25
26 customer satisfaction
27 Stay within cost budget, finish on time and product Safety, cost budgets, Safety, cost budgets, schedule, startup to generate.
meets customer needs. schedule, startup to generate.

28 none
29 Safety, budget & schedule are main indicators. None currently.
30 Client satisfaction - not with data. Labor pros / matrix
31
32 N/A at this time. Just starting See page 9
program.
33 Continued employments.
34 Safety, schedule, cost Internal Some owners have some interest.
Track turn over
35 Cost control, startup/commissioning difficulty, ease
of operation.
36

177
Org Number M-91a CII M-91b CII Measure M-92 Data M-93 M-94 Wrong
Track CII Lesson
File
1 No No No Down time schedules and schedules in general not practiced
2 No Too many fingers in the pie cause unanticipated changes that cost additional
time and money.
3 No No No Purchasing/Cost commitment
4 No No No Speed drives prosperity for short cutting quality checking, full scope
development, business verification
5
6
7 No No No Punchlist communication, deliver date not met by vendor
8 No No Yes Asset owners not following the project delivery process as developed
9
10 No No No Delays in getting the work installed. Also, plant people who initiate the work need
training on what is needed. This has delayed projects. Budget process is poor.

11 No Not consciously. No No Shortcut XXX, business driven schedule changes, downsizing.

12 No Not on small projects, we track No No We have some projects that could have waited a few years, thus they could have
only budget and schedule. been pushed back in time. Otherwise I can't recall any major occurrences.

13 No Still working on implementation No Operation/maintenance ownership

14
15 No No No **focus/ emphasis is lower
16 No No No Front end definition, interfaces
17 No No No Scope ill defined - too many people allowed to dictate changes.
18 Yes E&HO, LS contracts, FM, IFC, FL, Yes Yes Overruns due to lack of basic data, multiple customers poor communications,
- independent measures as a % lack of formal design reviews.
of IF, ITC
19 Yes No Yes Schedules slippage due to lack of dedication to project.
20 No No No We do not receive timely selections of finish materials by our clients (tenant
agencies). Clients (tenant agencies) often times change their space layouts
during constructions.
21
22 No No Yes Incomplete scope definition. Inadequate management of change.
23 No No No mistakes or omissions in definition
24 Not really No Yes overselling, lack of communication, lack of discipline, ignoring procedures
25
26 No Yes Overall project team participation, priority setting.
Process or project execution. Problem with operation.

178
Org Number M-91a CII M-91b CII Measure M-92 Data M-93 M-94 Wrong
Track CII Lesson
File
27 Yes Constructability, reliability, several No No
others.
28 Yes No No No data to show trends
29 Yes No No Lack of getting information from office to the field. Lack of feed back from the
field.
30 No No No Hand off from marketing to operations
31 No Small projects are dependent heavily on the performance of the project
Engineer. If he/she is organized and stays on top of the project, it usually goes
well.
32 No No
33 No No Yes Incomplete engineering.
34 No No Yes Poor definition and communication
35 No No No Changing priorities affecting schedules.
36

179
Org Number M-95 Well M-96a Benchmark M-96b B-Operation M-97 Imp-Practice

1
2 Full co-operation from tenant agency. Unfamiliar with any.
3 Planning and scheduling processes. Estimating.
Estimating process. Planning scheduling.
Timekeeping.
4 Speed, compliance to budget, reduced cost of Not same. All of them.
services, continuity of resources, cutting edge, G/A
Costs
5
6
7 Vendor budget low time
8 Using owner employees on the project team allows The relationship has been
execution to go smoother. around long enough to have
matured.
9
10 Several projects have been cancelled due to lack of I don't know of any
merit. In the past they would have been installed. standout
organizations/comp
anies

11 Maintained energy to drive to goal and use best I don't know of real 'Back to BASICS" effort to reinforce doing things we know to do
practices matching business needs. standout. and getting consultant more involved each ?.
12 We are much more on target with budget and time I cannot think of a company PPP'S, which is very prominent and PDRI's.
constraints due to the use of PDRI'S and PPP's. They that does the government
are very instrumental in heading off problems. work and that we consider
much better or more
advanced.

13 Operation/maintenance ownership 1) better aligned talent and use to correct projects;2) reduce the
amount of oversight (report, etc.) to allow more time for hands
on management of the projects.
14
15 Relatively low former / maintenance experience lower. Use more advanced program and IT technology to manage
project.
16 FEL, list of **** team work Integration owner/contractor, lower costs
17 Better relationships with area customers - more Actually lost some ground going to alliance - inexperienced in
flexible engineering disciplines our industry - plant acceptance poor - vastly improving; 60-70%
problems Alcoa, 30-40% KP.

180
Org Number M-95 Well M-96a Benchmark M-96b B-Operation M-97 Imp-Practice

18 100% design reviews, cost control, detailed scopes & Don't know of any other Communications,
estimates. better team Change management,
Identifying & communicating project problems, concerns,
FEL efforts to avoid re-cycles,
Basic data evaluations.

19 Using discipline staff as managers on some small

projects.
20 The team approach, especially the involvement of the No. Transition from a functional organization to the team approach.
customer service representative on the team
21
22 Better understanding of customer needs. Improved I am currently unaware of Project scope write-ups;
team dynamics, more real time status reports. Better the existence of any highly Better work estimating techniques; Improved management of
customer feedback. successful small project change; Improved customer interface; Better response times;
execution organization. I Improved "team" personality.
believe the mall project
execution organization here
at Sweeny is as "highly
successful" as any.

23 good chance management and focused scope standardized estimating methods,

declared average durations,
increased automation in schedule process,
decreased contingency,
increase scope definition discipline

24 We made goals - often boils down to $. Most often Ok. Zero accidents . Capital Working closer with owner safety process.
plan (fixed) stick to it, Site manager written to plant start meeting.
budget on Schedule. No
magic- many disasters.
Owner can set you or to fail.
Hard to ??

25
26 Primavera scheduling, contractor** scheduling
MRC - Management Review Committee.
Checklist
27 Meeting plant customer needs. Alliance contractors doing the majority of the work.
Not formalized alliance team meetings meet with plant
??.
28 No data to show trends (Same as large project)
better are project planning

181
Org Number M-95 Well M-96a Benchmark M-96b B-Operation M-97 Imp-Practice

29 Having a core group of supervisors have allowed us to 1. Standardized filing and document distribution.
apply what has been learned and give a uniform 2. Standardizing estimating process.
installation. 3. Toll box meeting and other safety items.
4. Quality improvement teams.
5. More continuity with site personnel.

30 No Which ones are the right ones.

Selecting not only larger projects.
31 I don't know.
32 Cost control has improved No way to judge
33 Strong team helps success. Safety - safe productivity.
Cost review - different ways to track ...
Project controls.
34 Staff continuity and team work. Estimate
Safety
Schedule
35 Cost controls, good startups. Unknown
36

182
 Construction Industry Institute®
The University of Texas at Austin
3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316
(512) 232-3000
FAX (512) 499-8101

Not printed with state funds

 ®

Bureau of Engineering Research

The University of Texas at Austin