http://fiatech.org/images/stories/techroadmap/deliverables/march2003/Current

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

CURRENT STATE ASSESSMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP INITIATIVE March 2003

March 2003

1

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Dear Colleague: It is with great pleasure that we present this March 2003 version of the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap (CPTR). Since we published the first version in January of 2002, much has occurred. We presented the Roadmap at numerous conferences, symposiums, and workshops where we have gathered input, ideas, and suggestions for improvement. We held a large, hands-on, workshop in Lansdowne, VA in November of 2002, and have had teams of technical experts examine that input and refine it to produce this year’s version of the Roadmap.

Board of Directors James B. Porter, Jr. (Co-Chairman) DuPont Engineering K. Keith Roe (Co-Chairman) Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. Sherif Barakat National Research Council of Canada Robert E. Donaho The Dow Chemical Company Charles Foundyller Daratech, Inc. Ian Howell CITADON Richard H.F. Jackson FIATECH

The excitement generated by this Initiative is both phenomenal and gratifying. A growing number of individuals, organizations and associations from across the industry, have participated in the development of the Roadmap. This interest and excitement has generated an impressive number of opportunities. For example, the U.S. Department of Commerce asked us to ensure that the new realities of Homeland Security were reflected in the Roadmap, so that this it may also be used to guide these new investments. Another opportunity came with the passage of the Enterprise Integration Act of 2002. FIATECH was instrumental in securing passage of this legislation, which authorizes The National Institute of Standards and Technology to work with industry on “an initiative of standards development and implementation for electronic enterprise integration.” FIATECH is now working with industry and non-governmental organizations in the construction, aerospace, automotive, and manufacturing industries to ensure appropriations for this landmark piece of legislation. This Roadmap is a crucial unifying element in this effort.

We all know that the construction industry is a critical component of the U.S. industrial base, and that it provides the physical infrastructure that supports our economy and our way of life. We know that this infrastructure has come under increasing pressure in recent years, and that this new pressure demands new responses from us. We know that technology is the engine of U.S. economic growth, so it should come as no surprise that the industry is turning increasingly to integration and automation to improve productivity.

Lastly, we know that budgets are tight, margins are slim, and no one organization, association, company, or institution will be able to solve these problems alone. Cooperation and coordination are key to success.

This is why FIATECH is developing this CPTR and offering it to its members and the industry at large.

We hope to work with all members of the industry, from owners to contractors to suppliers, and from industry, government, and academe, to choreograph the development of a national initiative in capital projects delivery, operation, and maintenance. If we can continue to advance this plan, we will be able to bring about the revolution in integration and automation that this industry so desperately needs.

Richard Pearson National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Some say this task is too big, that this goal is too overwhelming, or that the industry is too fragmented.

Some say that the industry will never change. We say that change will occur in this industry, and it is only a matter of time. FIATECH and those that are working with us intend to accelerate this change. Henry David Thoreau said it best:

C. Chatt Smith Jacobs Engineering

"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them!”

David Stinson Intergraph

We invite all who read this to explore these documents, investigate these plans, find those areas that interest you or in which you have expertise, and work with us to accomplish our goal to revolutionize the capital projects and facilities industry.

Randy Williams AVEVA, INC.

Sincerely,

John Voeller Black & Veatch Norbert Young McGraw-Hill Construction

Richard H.F. Jackson Director, FIATECH

Jack E. Snell (Special Advisor) Building & Fire Research Laboratory/NIST

March 2003

2

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

CONTENTS 1.0 THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY ............................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Federal R&D Investments............................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Challenges & Opportunities.......................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Current State Assessment ............................................................................................................. 18 2.0 ONGOING INITIATIVES ........................................................................................................................ 53 APPENDICES Appendix A – “What If?” ........................................................................................................................... 65 Appendix B – ASCE Report Card and Policy Recommendations.............................................................. 67 Appendix C – Federal Investments in New Construction and Building, FY1999 ...................................... 71 Appendix D – The PISTEP Process Plant Engineering Activity Model..................................................... 75 Appendix E – Acronyms & Abbreviations. ................................................................................................ 77 Appendix F – Source Material and Suggested Reading.............................................................................. 80 Appendix G – Capital Projects Model – Functional Element Definitions.................................................. 84 Appendix H – Workshop 1 Action Imperatives.......................................................................................... 88

March 2003

3

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

FOREWORD In October 2001, representatives from the capital projects industry met in San Antonio, Texas to develop a comprehensive technology research and development agenda. The goal: to identify critical technology needs that crosscut all sectors of the industry, and to identify requirements for focused R&D to meet those challenges. In November 2002, a second team of industry experts met in Lansdowne, Virginia to review the evolving document, address emerging Homeland Security issues, and define an initial slate of focused programs to implement the recommendations defined in the roadmap.

This Current State Assessment presents an overview of current state of the industry as well as a summary of ongoing activities. This is a living plan that will evolve over the coming months as we bring industry, academic, and government partners together to refine and implement the plan. We encourage you to read it closely and thoughtfully, and provide us with the benefit of your individual expertise and views.

It is important to note that in the context of this document, “capital projects” spans the entire life cycle of a capital facility – from requirements definition, project planning, and design, to procurement, construction, and operational handover, to facility operation, maintenance, and ultimate disposition at the end of its useful life. Certain aspects of the roadmap are focused on the “project” view of the life cycle; other aspects are focused on operations and maintenance perspectives. One compelling finding of the roadmapping effort is that both of these perspectives are deeply interrelated and interdependent. It is also important to note that the roadmap spans all manner of capital projects and capital facilities; the goal of the roadmapping team was to be broadly inclusive, ensuing that the needs, issues and concerns of all sectors of the industry are met in this document.

If you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations on this draft document, please direct them to the project team in care of Nicole Testa at testa@fiatech.org.

If you would like more information about FIATECH, please visit our web site at www.fiatech.org or call us at (512) 232-9600.

March 2003

4

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish here to acknowledge gratefully those individuals and organizations that assisted FIATECH in developing, promoting, and refining the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap (CPTR) Initiative. First, we would like to acknowledge the efforts of Jim Bartlett (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, retired) who, while he served as Chair of the Construction Industry Institute’s (CII) FIAPP Steering Committee, first proposed the idea of developing a CPTR for the industry. Our thanks also extends to Dr. Jack Snell, Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory, who helped us obtain initial seed funding for the effort from the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Construction and Buildings.

With that funding, we were able to kick off the project and keep it going with additional support obtained from Linda Beth Schiller, Acting Deputy Director of the NIST Advanced Technology Program.

The early success of the CPTR was sufficient to excite the interest of the CII Executive Committee, in particular, Ken Eickmann, CII Director, and Hal Yoh, Chairman, and CEO, Day and Zimmerman International, Inc, who was Chair of the CII Executive Committee at the time. They convinced the CII Board of Advisors to provide further support to carry the CPTR forward. This was critical and their support is acknowledged gratefully also. Numerous sponsoring agencies were also integral in generating initial support and interest and they include the National Science Foundation (Dr. Miriam Heller, Program Director), the National Research Council of Canada (Dr. Sherif Barakat, Director General), and the NIST Advanced Technology Program (Dr. Cita Furlani, Director, Information Technology and Electronics Office). Dr. Snell, whose support in the early stages of the CPTR was instrumental, also provided additional support later on to reflect the new realities of Homeland Security. Without the vision, commitment, and support of these individuals, organizations and agencies, this CPTR would not have come to be.

Of course, the technical content of the CPTR comes from people: dedicated, motivated, and committed people from all across the industry, at all levels within their organizations and from all types of organizations. It is these technical professionals who volunteered their time to refine the details of the current state, the desired future state, and the path by which we get from one to the other. Additionally, a select group of volunteer technical reviewers provided significant input and thus helped to refine the early versions of the documents. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all of these individuals who shared a common goal to see that the vision was achieved for the capital projects and facilities industry. These are the leaders, the ones who “get it.” They are the ones who realize that the revolution that this industry so desperately needs will not come by watching from the sidelines, but by rolling up our sleeves and working to make it happen. They are listed below.

• • • • • • • • • • •

• Ted Blackmon, Reality Capture Technologies, Inc. • Doug Brassard, McDonough Bolyard Peck • Rob Brawn, CH2M Hill • Mark Browning, JP Step Holding Co. • Pablo Buki, SKIRE • Stephen A. Cauffman, NIST • Daniel Cheng, ArFlex Corporation • Vincent Chia, Intergraph Systems • Mark Browning, JP Step Holding Co. • Constantine A. Ciesielski, East Carolina University • Erin Cassidy, Industry Canada • Albeniz Crespo, SAP Labs

Mike Alianza, Intel Corporation Julio Arocho, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Michael Atkinson, Aspen Technology Lee Bailey, Bechtel Corporation Gary Baker, Bechtel Corporation Bryan Ball, Merck and Company, Inc. Sherif Barakat, National Research Council of Canada Dwight Beranek, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Harvey Bernstein, CERF Chris Bezuidenhout, Innotec Engineering Scott Birth, Mead Westavo Corporation

March 2003

5

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • John Decaire, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences • James Dempsey, U.S. Coast Guard • Robert Donaho, The Dow Chemical Company • Gary Drury, PMI • Roger Eatwell, Quillion, Ltd. • Benedict Eazzetta, Intergraph PBS • Jose Manuel Estevez, EDF • Benson Fergus, CH2M Hill • Michael J. Fladmark, Time Industrial, Inc. • Charles Foundyller, DaraTech, Inc. • Hunter Fulghum, Turner Aviation Security • Cita Furlani, NIST/ATP • Reginald Gagliardo, Burns and Roe • Stephen Garnier, Fairfax County Govt.

• James Garrett, Carnegie-Mellon University • Richard Geissler, IAI • Karl Georgi, Bechtel Systems • Charlie Green, Aramco Services Company • Michael Hayes, CH2M Hill • Miriam Heller, National Science Foundation • Patricia Parodi Herz, OTEPI Consultores • Patrick Holcomb, Intergraph PBS • Rob Howard, Jacobs • William Iler, Bentley J.W. • Jantunen, Bantrel, Inc. • Jim Johnson, Bentley • Barney W. Jones, Bentley • Joe Jones, Dow Chemical • Stephen A. Jones, Primavera Systems • Issam Karkoutoli, INOVx Solutions • Jeffrey M. Kauffman, University of Texas • Frank Keyser, Earth Tech • Timothy S. Killen, Bechtel Corporation • James B. Klein, AVEVA, Inc. • Gary Koah, Jacobs Engineering • Ed Koch, Bechtel Systems • Robert Kwok, Dow Chemical Company • Paul Lower, Shell Chemical Company • Hal Macomber, Lean Construction Institute • Adrian McBrien, Aspen Technology • Deborah McNeil, Dow Chemical Company • Gordon McPhee, Fluor Corporation • John McQuary, Fluor Corporation • Gerhard Meinecke, Impress Software • Chris Michaelis, Intel Corporation • Moody Miles, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Thomas S. Murphy, Bayer Corporation

March 2003

6

• Chris Norris, National Research Council of Canada • William O'Brien, University of Florida • Kenneth Olmsted, Smithsonian Institution • John Osby, DuPont • Mark Owens, BWXT Y-12 • Mark Palmer, NIST • Ronald Palmer, Palmer Security Consulting • Judith W. Passwaters, DuPont Company • Feniosky Pena-Mora, MIT • Charles Poer, Zachry Construction Corporation • James B. Porter, Jr., DuPont Company • Robert Prieto, Parsons Brinckerhoff • Les Prudhomme, Construction Industry Institute • Gord Rachar, GKO Engineering • Sylvia Rappenecker, Dow Chemical Company • Keith Roe, Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. • Jonathan Rudick, Reality Capture Technologies, Inc. • Mike Saines, Chevron Corporation • Tom Sawyer, ENR • Stan Schaefer, Zachry Construction Corporation • Todd Shearer, Anteon Corporation • Ryo Shibamiya, Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. • Sunny Singh, Intergraph Systems • James D. Slaughter, S&B Engineers & Constructors Ltd. • Sarah Slaughter, MOCA Systems • Chatt Smith, Jacobs Engineering • Jack Snell, Building & Fire Research Laboratory, NIST • Lucio Soibelman, University of Illinois • Anthony Songer, Virginia Tech • Martin Stenzig, Impress Software • Larry Stephenson, U.S. Army Engineer Research Development Center • David Stinson, Intergraph Corporation • Art Stout, Intel Corporate Services • Paul D. Taylor, CITGO Petroleum Corporation • Tom Teague, ePlantdata • Craig Townsend, PDAC, Inc. • John Turnbull, BNFL Engineering • Jaime Valencia, Aspen Technology • Jorge Vanegas, Georgia Tech University

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Camille Villanova, U.S Dept. of Labor, OSHA • John Voeller, Black & Veatch • Richard Wallace, Zachry Construction Corporation • Ruth Wepfer, Dick Corporation • Robert Wible, NCSBCS

• • • • •

Randy Williams, AVEVA, Inc. Dennis M. Wolf, Conoco, Inc. Freddie P. Wong, Aramco Services Company H. Felix Wu, NIST Norbert Young, McGraw-Hill Construction

PROJECT STAFF • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

Gayle Brace, IMTI William Brosey, IMTI Dudley Caswell, IMTI David Dilts, IMTI Lynn Glover, IMTI Ric Jackson, FIATECH Sara Jordan, IMTI Liz Landeros, FIATECH Donna Marks, IMTI

Doug Marks, IMTI Mary Ann Merrell, IMTI Richard Neal, IMTI Barbara Newland, FIATECH Peter Osborne, IMTI Nicole Testa, FIATECH Kathy Thomas, IMTI Ray Walker, IMTI Charles Wood, FIATECH

Lastly, we want gratefully to acknowledge those organizations and associations that have contributed to the development and promotion of the CPTR and are working with FIATECH to broaden industry’s use of it. Their support and commitment to this initiative is most welcomed and appreciated. They include: o American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) o Architectural Engineering Institute (AEI) o Association of Owners and Developers (AOD) o Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) o Construction Industry Institute (CII) o Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT) o Construction Users Roundtable (CURT) o Continental Automated Buildings Association (CABA) o Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) o International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) o International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) o National Conference on States Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) o National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) o National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) o National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) o The Infrastructure Security Partnership (TISP) o Uitgebreid Samenwerkingsverband Procesindustrie, Nederland (USPI-NL)

March 2003

7

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

1.0 THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY The capital projects industry is a critical element of the U.S. industrial base, providing and maintaining the world’s largest and most complex national civil infrastructure. However, that infrastructure is under tremendous stresses as a result of insufficient national attention to expanding and maintaining critical assets. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in March released its 2001Report Card for America's Infrastructure (Figure 1-1), in which the nation received a cumulative grade of "D+" for 12 major areas, including roads and bridges, dams and navigable waterways, aviation, waste handling, water supply, and energy. Causes for such a dismal grade include: • Explosive population growth • Local political opposition and red tape which stymie the development of effective solutions • The growing obsolescence of an aging system - evident in the breakdown of California's electrical generation system and the nation's decaying water infrastructure.

Table 1-1 identifies some of the key contributors to the low grades in each category.

"When you've got rolling blackouts in California, bridges crumbling in Milwaukee, and kids in Kansas City attending class in a former boys' restroom, something is desperately wrong," says ASCE President Robert W. Bein. "The solutions to these problems involve more than money, but as with most things in life, you get what you pay for. America has been seriously under-investing in its infrastructure for decades, and this report card reflects that."

ASCE estimates a needed $1.3 trillion investment over the next 5 years and calls for a renewed partnership between citizens, local, state and federal governments, and the private sector.

Figure 1-1. ASCE rates our nation’s civil

The 2001 Report Card follows one released in 1998, at which infrastructure as just a notch above a time the infrastructure element earned an average grade of failing grade, requiring investments of "D." While there have been efforts to address infrastructure $1.3 trillion over the next 5 years to address critical issues. shortfalls, ASCE's analysis shows that conditions remain basically the same. Five categories have gone up slightly but are still average or below. Grades in three categories – transit, aviation and wastewater – have gone down.

Two new infrastructure areas, navigable waterways and energy, have kept the grade point average low.

Led by an 11-member advisory council, ASCE determined its grades by evaluating the infrastructure's condition, performance, capacity and funding.1 Appendix B reproduces the full Report Card and includes ASCE policy recommendations in each area.

1

Norida Torriente, Civil Engineers Give Nation's Infrastructure A “D+”, American Society of Civil Engineers, March 2001. http://www.asce.org/reportcard/.

March 2003

8

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 1-1.

ASCE’s U.S. Infrastructure Report Card for 2001 2001 Grade

1998 Grade

Roads

D+

D-

Bridges

C

C-

Transit

C-

C

Aviation

D

C-

Schools

D-

F

Drinking Water

D

D

Wastewater

D

D+

Dams

D

C-

Solid Waste

C+

C-

Hazardous Waste

D+

D-

Navigable Waterways

D+

NA*

Energy

D+

NA*

Category

Comments One-third of the nation's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, costing American drivers an estimated $5.8 billion a year. Road conditions contribute to as many as 13,800 highway fatalities annually. Twenty-seven percent of America's urban freeways - which account for 61% of all miles driven - are congested.

As of 1998, 29% of the nation's bridges were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, an improvement from 31% in 1996. It is estimated that it will cost $10.6 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies.

Transit ridership has increased 15% since 1995 - faster than airline or highway transportation. Capital spending must increase 41% just to maintain the system in its present condition.

Airport capacity has increased only 1% in the past 10 years, while air traffic has increased 37%. Airport congestion delayed nearly 50,000 flights in 1 month alone last year. It also jeopardizes safety - there were 429 runway incursions ("near misses") reported in 2000, up 25% from 1999.

Due to aging or outdated facilities or severe overcrowding, 75% of our nation's school buildings are inadequate to meet the needs of school children. Since 1998, the total need has increased from $112 billion to $127 billion.

The nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of $11 billion to replace facilities that are nearing the end of their useful life and to comply with federal water regulations. Non-point source pollution remains the most significant threat to water quality.

The nation's 16,000 wastewater systems face enormous needs. Some sewer systems are 100 years old. Currently, there is a $12 billion annual shortfall in funding for this category, but federal funding has remained flat for a decade. Over one-third of U.S. surface waters do not meet water quality standards.

There are more than 2,100 unsafe dams in the U.S. There were 61 reported dam failures in the past 2 years. The number of "high-hazard potential dams" - those whose failure would cause loss of life - increased from 9,281 in 1998 to 9,921 in 2001.

The amount of solid waste sent to landfills has declined 13% since 1990, while the amount of waste recovered through recycling has nearly doubled. Most states have 10 years' worth of landfill capacity and waste-to-energy plants now manage 17% of the nation's trash.

Regulation and enforcement have largely halted the contamination of new sites.

Aided by the best cleanup technology in the world, the rate of Superfund cleanup has quickened - though not enough to keep pace with the number of new sites listed as the backlog of potential sites is assessed.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a backlog of $38 billion in authorized projects. On the inland waterways system, 44% of all the lock chambers have already exceeded their 50-year design lives. Key deep-draft channels are inadequate for the mega-container ships, which are the world standard for international trade.

Transportation demand on waterways is expected to double by 2020, and serious performance problems are likely.

Since 1990, actual capacity has increased only about 7,000 MW per year, an annual shortfall of 30%. More than 10,000 MW of capacity must be added each year until 2008 to keep up with the 1.8% annual demand growth. The U.S. energy transmission infrastructure relies on older technology, raising questions of longterm reliability.

*not covered in prior year

March 2003

9

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The continuing technology revolution of the past 20 years has fostered a time of unprecedented opportunity and challenge for the capital projects industry.

The booming economy of the last decade – although now showing signs of slowdown – has driven explosive growth in new construction, at the same time both tightening the labor market and increasing the costs of doing business. New technologies, processes, and materials are making design and construction processes more efficient, but these advantages are offset by increased complexity of design and project execution requirements. Increased scope of risk issues, particularly with regards to environmental impacts, is also a challenge. Higher costs and tighter margins have put a premium on the ability to plan efficiently and to execute according to plan.

Where Are We Now, and Where Are We Going? “...Current levels of technology use across the industry are disappointingly low and the industry's ad-hoc approaches toward technology development and adoption fall far short of what's needed. The negative impacts to the industry from these low levels of technology usage invariably include poor or mediocre project results and loss of workers to more attractive industries...that more effectively exploit the power of technology.

“The capital facilities industry sorely needs a radically new strategy or blueprint for advancing levels of technology development and usage.

Given the fragmentation of the industry, this can only be achieved with fresh energized leadership, widespread commitment to providing the needed resources...

Companies in this sector are investing heavily to enhance their capabilities and competitiveness, and organizations are working to improve collaboration.

However, there has not been concerted effort to “Any industry-wide strategy for technical adleverage our collective resources to systematically vancement must go far beyond the challenges of analyze and attack the barriers to leap-ahead task automation and address the more signifiimprovements in capability and cost-effectiveness. cant hurdles associated with task-to-task inteThe industry remains highly fragmented. Numerous gration links.” large A&E and construction firms dominate the – James T. O’Connor, Project and Phase-Level Technology various sectors of this market, but all rely on an Use Metrics for Capital Facility Projects increasingly distributed network of local and regional for raw materials, suppliersprefabricated for raw materials, components prefabricated and systems, and craft labor.

The capital projects industry is truly unique. It applies the same kinds of disciplines and processes as classical manufacturing enterprises, but most of its products are custom-built end items. This industry also operates on a massive scale: the cost of a defective product is far greater than dropping a replacement in the mail to customers.

The industry likewise has a unique enterprise paradigm, with different firms playing one or more roles that often vary from project to project. Figure 1-2 shows some of the complexity of these relationships across the life cycle of a typical project.2 What changes yet lie ahead for the industry? What new technologies, materials, processes and systems are emerging that we can leverage to provide more capable and innovative services to our clients? What tools should be developed to enable the fast and efficient delivery of better and more consistent products?

How can productivity and skills be enhanced to empower the workforce of tomorrow?

From the strategic view, developing new technologies and making better use of existing and emerging technologies is just one piece of the puzzle. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy identifies six trends to which industry must adapt and respond: • Transition to a knowledge-based workforce • Collaborative, reconfigurable workplaces • Aging of the U.S. population base 2

Gagliardo, Reg, Fully Integrated and Automated Project Processes – The Vision; Burns & Roe, CII Annual Conference 2001.

March 2003

10

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Figure 1-2. A typical capital project requires integration of multiple players across the project life cycle. This complexity is amplified by the fact that different firms play different roles on different projects, and a largescale project may involve hundreds of subcontractors and suppliers.

• • • • •

Urban rebirth Shrinking construction labor pool and shifting demographics Environmental and health issues Energy issues Insurance and liability issues.3

Several areas that require specific attention are discussed below.

Engineering & Project Management Systems Information and automation technologies are core components of the strategic plans of the U.S. construction industry. However, today’s construction “systems” remain largely ad-hoc creations that often mix state-of-the-art tools with turn-of-the-century practices. They rely largely on advances in other sectors, such as computer-aided design and engineering and information technology tools, to improve capabilities.

A recent report by the Center for Construction Industry Studies at the University of Texas at Austin points out that construction projects typically employ a very low level of task integration and automation (rating 3.85 on a scale of 10), with the bulk of that focused on automation in the design phase.4 Advances in information and automation technologies have been identified as key components for achieving the National Construction Goals. The U.S. chemical industry identifies information systems as a key technical discipline in its Technology Vision 2020. Vision 2020 predicts that achieving the smooth flow of information – from concept through design to construction and into plant maintenance and operation – will promote the use of automation and improve economic competitiveness. The 1999 Strategic Plan of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) identifies six major industry trends that will shape the construction industry in the next century. CII identifies fully integrated and automated project processes (FIAPP) as the most significant trend and predicts it will revolutionize the construction industry. Characteristics of 3 4

High-Performance Commercial Buildings: A Technology Roadmap, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Building Technology, October 2000.

O’Connor, James T. and Mark E Kumashiro et al, Project and Phase-Level Technology Use Metrics for Capital Facility Projects, Center for Construction Industry Studies, December 2000.

March 2003

11

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE FIAPP products and services include one-time data entry; interoperability with design, construction, and operation processes (e.g., virtual construction and construction automation); and userfriendly input/output techniques. Attainment of fully integrated and automated project processes is expected to provide savings of more than $2 billion compared to present practices.5 Automated tools for integrated management of capital projects are emerging. New applications such as Constructware (Figure 1-3), ProjectNet, and ProjectCenter network project participants to a centralized database of project data and information-management tools to improve communication and collaboration. Because the project database is continuously updated, owners, architects, engineers, and subcontractors can immediately access current information to track progress and support real-time decision-making and analysis.

Figure 1-3. With applications such as Constructware, we are now seeing the first generation of true project management systems for the construction industry.

Carnegie Mellon University has developed a system concept for a Construction Information Management System (CIAMS) that is designed to automate the ad-hoc reconciliation of the as-built design to the design intent. This system networks the designer, construction management team, and contractors and uses in-process survey information to provide continuously current visibility into configuration control.7 Since CIAMS is aware of the design and “as-is” status of the construction site, it can generate reports to keep project management "…The real limitations are aware of construction status. Further, since the team has access to not the technology anymore.

It's in people's ability to use current drawings of the actual state of the site through CIAMS to aid the technology to get out of in redesign, the designer and project management are able to test pothe paradigms they are in." tential solutions before implementation. CIAMS is extensible to allow 6 – Evan Yares, Cyon Research input of survey data from multiple types of “surveyors.” In addition to the traditional survey company, sensors and robots could deliver survey data directly to CIAMS. Future work is planned to prototype a deployable automated assessment sensory system to collect survey points as needed.

Modeling and Simulation Tools Modeling and simulation (Figure 1-4) are increasingly powerful and valuable tools in all aspects of capital project design and engineering. A recent CII study on Electronic Simulation in Construction found that, across industry: • 82% used 3D CAD systems • 67% used virtual reality/visualization tools • 65% used these tools to improve project management

5

Chapman, Robert E., Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems Integration and Automation Technologies in Industrial Facilities, NIST Building & Fire Research Laboratory, June 2000.

6 Tuchman, Janice and Tom Sawyer, Construction's Information Technology Moves to New Phase, report on the A/E/C System 2001 tradeshow, 20 June 2001.

7 Latimer, T, DeWitt IV and Ogbemi Hammond et al, Automatic Detection of Significant Variation From Designed Intent Utilizing Survey Data, Carnegie Mellon University, 2001. http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~dl4s/professional/ISARC2000/

March 2003

12

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Mathematical simulation tools are not widely used • Most respondents have made some level of integration and desire more.8 Primary uses of such tools include design interference checks, equipment installation and access, plant layout, maintenance and operations review, constructability review, and construction interference checks. Major barriers to more widespread use include high capital cost of acquisition, uncertain cost/benefit value, a lack of trained users, and, as with most innovations in most industries, resistance to change.

Figure 1-4. Integrated simulation environments offer the potential to totally automate the capital projects design and systems engineering process.

CAD is certainly not new, although in its 3D incarnation its capabilities are not fully exploited across the breadth of the industry. The challenge now is to evolve to a toolset that enables designers to completely model a capital facility design with mathematical accuracy as well as visual fidelity, and to link live design and status information to all elements of the simulation using emerging virtual reality modeling language (VRML) technology (Figure 1-5).

Communications and Data Management Most managers on major capital facility projects will tell you that the most important tool in their arsenal isn’t a computer, but rather a telephone. Communication is critical to exchanging information, identifying problems, getting the right resolutions, and managing the intricate web of interdependent activities from the design phase through handoff of the completed facility to the owner/operator. Beyond mere cell phones, wireless technology offers the potential to monitor and track virtually every activity and item in the construction process. Unfortunately, wireless communications/data management is caught in a swirl of competing standards and differing, largely unmeasured capabilities. Improvement on all counts is on the way, however, and wireless technology – coupled with robust, low-cost sensors, will become the glue to create intelligent facilities in the very near future.

8

Figure 1-5. In ongoing research at NIST, VRML models serve as a web-based 3D view of the construction relevant to the construction process.

and as a test bed for exploring the presentation of information Shproject arp, Bryan, Electronic Simulation In Construction, Petrofac, CIIAnnual Conference 2001.

March 2003

13

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Materials Concrete and steel form the backbone of every capital facility and account for the largest share of material costs for most projects, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As stated in the U.S. Concrete Industry Technology Roadmap, slightly more than a ton of concrete is produced each year for every human being on the planet — some 6 billion tons a year.9 Key goals for improvement in this area include: • Improved processes for design, manufacturing, transportation, construction, maintenance, and repair • Improved strength and structural performance • Improved energy efficiency in all stages to the material life cycle • Improved environmental performance, including use of recycled waste and byproducts.

These same goals can be readily applied to almost any kind of material used in construction of a capital facility. Fasteners, insulation, roofing materials, glass, drywall, brick and mortar, and the materials that make up facility systems and process equipment all represent opportunities for reducing cost, improving performance, extending facility life, enhancing safety and environmental acceptability/sustainability, and improving handling in both staging and construction. A 1998 report prepared by the Materials Technology Institute outlines key barriers to higher-performing materials of construction, operation, and maintenance for chemical processing industries as: • Limited ability to model materials interactions • Lack of fundamental understanding of materials • Limited understanding of degradation in new materials • Limits on manufacturability/size and shape • Lack of support/user participation in development of codes and standards for new materials • Inability to apply life cycle costs on a consistent basis, incorporating the role of materials • Lack of reliable, cost-effective, on-line self-sensing methods • Lack of inexpensive, strong, corrosion-resistant material with low life cycle costs • Risk involved with using new materials.10 The cost of developing and incorporating advanced materials is high. The reliability of new materials is unproven in most practical applications, and exploring their use in a process environment is risky. Significant R&D, from bench scale experiments to the construction and testing of prototypes, is usually necessary before a new material can be implemented. Fabrication into cost-effective forms is often a significant barrier to the use of newly developed materials. In many cases, the expense and risk attached to new materials R&D puts it low on the corporate research priority list.

9

U.S. Concrete Industry Technology Roadmap, Draft, July 2001.

Technology Roadmap for Materials of Construction, Operation and Maintenance in the Chemical Process Industries, Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Process Industries, Inc., December 1998.

10

March 2003

14

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

1.1 FEDERAL R&D INVESTMENTS A 2001 report by the Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute provides excellent insight into federal investments in the construction sector.11 According to the report, investments in new construction and building typically represent 8% to 10% of the national GDP. Despite the importance of such investments, this industry is generally believed to invest less than 0.5% of the value of its sales in R&D, whereas the national average for other sectors is close to 3%.

Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2 provide an overview of federal construction and buildings (C&B) R&D Figure 1.1-1. C&B-Related Average Annual Federal by agency and by category, and Appendix E Funding, By Agency provides a brief description of the investments in each area. It is perhaps not surprising to note that the Department of Energy and Transportation collectively account for a more than 60% of the funding, with outlays related to power generation facilities and roads and bridges accounting for over half the total investments as indicated in Figure 1.1.1-2. What is surprising is that technology-related investments for capital facility design, construction, and operation are very limited, accounting for only some 17% of the total.

Figure 1.1-2. C&B-Related Average Annual Federal Funding, By Category 11

Hassell, Scott, Scott Florence and Emile Ettedgui, Summary of Federal Construction, Building, and Housing Related Research & Development in FY1999, Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2001.

March 2003

15

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

1.2 CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES Numerous agencies and organizations have articulated goals for the construction and capital projects industry. A 1999 report by the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Construction and Building sums these up well at a high level, specifically citing: • 50% reduction in delivery time • 50% reduction in operation, maintenance, and energy costs • 50% less waste and pollution • 50% more durability and flexibility • 50% reduction in construction work illnesses and injuries.12 While these targets are somewhat generic, they do identify the areas where significant improvement is desired. Specific goals targeted by FIATECH include: • Seamless integration of information flow among all participants throughout entire project life cycle.

The construction industry must go digital, get rid of blueprints and get everything on computer, if for no other reason than to be able to send information contained within them instantly to anywhere in the world. “Also, you need to come up with a single standard; there are too many now. The team that can develop a new standard will take over the industry, and that standard is going to have to be on the web.”

– Frank Feather, at CMD Group’s Annual North American Construction Forecast, October 2000

• Integration of leading-edge technologies in the areas of CAD and CAE, advanced communications, field sensing and tracking, modularization, pre-construction, field automation, and construction automation to provide a powerful “system of systems” for cradle-tograve management and execution of complex capital facilities projects.

• 30-40% reductions in cost and schedule.

• Reduced design changes and rework.

• Rapid detection and correction of differences between design intent and in construction – both inprocess and as-built.

• Highly accurate as-built information for operation and maintenance (O&M) and future renovation.

• Breakthrough improvements in quality and performance, resulting in improved ROI. Specific challenges cited by participants at the FIATECH Spring Members Meeting in April 2001 are listed below. These are presented in no particular priority, but rather represent the raw feedback from the participants, with minor editing for clarity.

• Need to be able to better identify and apply current technologies that enhance productivity and enable us to work smarter.

• Reduce timelines for facility construction.

• Redundant data entry, inefficient change management, lack of systems interoperability, design vs. as-built discrepancy, and design interpretation (drawings confusion) are all pervasive problems.

• Need real-time capture of as-built configuration.

• Need living building model.

• Improve customer satisfaction (30% rework is average).

• Emerging enterprise models (contracting/life cycle models) do not adequately address risk.

12

Snell, Jack E. and Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Interagency Program for Technical Advancement in Construction and Building, National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Construction and Building, 1999.

March 2003

16

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Need intellectual property protection.

• Need a master data model to provide information connectivity.

• Need seamless sharing of information.

• Calculation of Total Installed Cost is very difficult due to lack of data at the detail level (e.g., pipe quantity, number of welds).

• Must be able to capture accurate final information from outside sources (in right format), using a common data structure.

• Data available is too often inaccurate, insufficient, and/or outdated.

• Lack of knowledge management tools and discipline requires multiple information re-creation loops.

• Lack of cooperation and collaboration • Need to improve safety and overall industry safety performance.

• Need ability to simulate and trade off multiple parameters.

• Improve material conveyance.

• Multispectral scanning of existing structures to capture exact as-built configuration and condition, IR, magnetic, RF, acoustic, ultrasound, MRI • Protocols in EPC model have to be application-specific. How do you deal with application evolution?

• Need a universal application integration framework.

• Now we have islands of automation for each task, none of which communicate. Getting the right info to the right person at the right time is a problem.

• Vendors, constructors, and stakeholders all have multiple islands of automation, which is making information management complex and costly.

• Maintaining configuration control so everyone knows changes and how they affect each piece. Currently, everyone works off a different ‘sheet of music,’ which delays technical decisions and propagates problems. How do you get the word to everyone who needs the information? How do you track how a new change affects past work? Currently there is no way to disseminate changes.

• Decision-making drives competitiveness. Need informed decision making. Major issue is 24 hour engineering – many changes happening simultaneously.

• We would trade difficulties on front end for improving safety – are there technologies that will help that happen? Must build lessons learned into construction processes. How do we automate safety in design?

• Electronic design is not maintained throughout the project. The entire process needs to build on a common design.

• Need targeted/automated knowledge management for construction projects.

• Need timely capture and transfer of information between phases/applications/stakeholders.

• Need informed decision-making process including rationale and consequences.

March 2003

17

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

1.3 CURRENT STATE ASSESSMENT 1.3.1 Project Definition & Planning Today’s capital projects industry is a testament to vision, innovation, and technological prowess. Yet, it is widely accepted that the industry could accomplish more – faster, better, and with fewer resources. The definition and planning phase is the lynchpin of any capital project, as it defines and bounds what can be accomplished, and sets the stage for success.

Technology is certainly a major enabler in this phase, but the real limiting factor is the ability to focus human talents to define and put into action the plans and the resources to accomplish the best possible result defined by the business model. The nature of the industry itself represents a challenge, since in the purest sense there is no such pure entity as a “capital projects enterprise” that embraces the entire engineer-procure-construct-operate-maintain-decommission (EPCOMD) life cycle. There are design/build firms, engineering firms, architectural firms, construction firms, and small companies specializing in hundreds of various disciplines; large manufacturing enterprises that manage their own projects; and federal and state agencies who serve both as customer and contractor for different kinds of projects, all of which are invariably unique.

Current business trends have many companies questioning the precepts of their business models, as disruptive change seems in the offing. The environment is evolving quickly as new technology and new alignments arise. However, the rate and effectiveness of change is hampered by a lack of continuity and collaboration across the industry. A fundamental key to improving the way capital projects are done is to improve the integration and collaboration of all the contributing disciplines, from the front end of the process forward. Business and technological tools both must contribute to the solution.

Information and information automation technologies are key enablers of the project definition and planning function. The ability to accurately capture and reuse information throughout the design process, without errors, omissions, or redundant input, is key. While much progress has been made in use of 3-D CAD and in applications systems, there is much more to do in maximizing the benefits of innovation.

A recent Construction Industry Institute (CII) study on Electronic Simulation in Construction found that, across industry, 82% of the respondents use 3-D CAD systems and 67% use virtual reality/visualization tools, but few use mathematical simulation or have any degree of integration between different systems.13 The tools are primarily used for design interference checks, equipment installation and access planning, plant layout, maintenance and operations review, and constructability review. Major barriers to more widespread use include the high cost of acquisition, uncertain cost/benefit value, a lack of trained users, and resistance to change.

CAD and CAE are certainly not new, and although some companies are moving towards 4-D CAD (integrating schedule functionality), the basic capabilities of these technologies are not fully exploited across the breadth of the industry.

One promising trend is an emerging consensus among U.S. engineering/construction firms to standardize on best-in-class commercial tools and to license and share best-in-class internally developed systems, to do away with the cost of reinventing tools that already exist. Japan and Singapore are already benefiting from such cooperative approaches.

Multiple factors contribute to the challenge of providing the best solutions on time at the best cost. Lead times from idea to facility completion and operational hand-off are long. This is particularly true in projects with high public view and participation. The decision process for roads, dams, airports, power plants and similar projects can stretch out over many years, making it very difficult to provide cost effective so-

13

Sharp, Bryan, Electronic Simulation In Construction, Petrofac, CII Annual Conference 2001.

March 2003

18

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE lutions. Technology does not stand still, and the designs are often frozen with technology that is out of date before the facility is operational.

Modeling and simulation (M&S) has emerged as a key component of the project conceptualization process, and virtual reality has captured the imagination of many in the industry. However, most M&S use is for visualization. Few tools are in widespread use that apply the mathematical capabilities of modeling systems for decision analysis and design optimization.

Knowledge management (KM) is also receiving attention as a strategy for cost savings and protection of core competencies. Most current KM applications emphasize capture of specific expertise, lessons learned, and reuse of legacy data and experience from past projects. The real opportunity, yet untapped, is the capture of experiential and scientific knowledge in useful form, and the integration of that knowledge with M&S tools to enable creation of true automated project definition and design systems.

The lack of interoperability of design and applications systems is a major problem in all aspects of the capital projects industry. In project definition and planning, lack of interoperability necessitates the use of translators and re-input of data, which introduces transcription errors and adds to project costs and time.

New tools are emerging, but integration and interoperability are not universally built into these systems.

Therefore, business planning systems do not communicate directly with design systems, which do not communicate well with project management systems – and so on, throughout all phases of the project.

Table 1.3.1-1 provides a top-level characterization of the current state of industry regarding project definition and planning, which is discussed in further detail below.

1.3.1.1 Business/Facility Planning The business planning function in today’s companies varies from informal evaluation of alternatives to rigorous assessment systems that evaluate market, cost, schedule, risk, liabilities, and other factors. In some cases, the planning process is long and arduous. In others, it is characterized by speed and flexibility. A public project that requires condemnation of property and the use of large tracts of land might go through years of review and debate before decisions are made. Environmental impact statements and approvals can add many months to the process. On the other extreme, privately owned corporations may make large capital decisions very quickly and may navigate the regulatory requirements with little difficulty – particularly when the local economy and political structure is supportive.

The capital project selection process varies across organizations. For some, capital funds must be specifically programmed into the budget based on a defined need. For others, funds are set aside on an annual basis and projects compete for those funds. Decisions are often made on the power of personal persuasion, more than on the soundness of the business case. In other instances, funds are allocated to projects just because the process dictates that a certain amount of funds will be spent.

March 2003

19

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 1.3.1-1. State Map for Project Definition & Planning Sub-Element

Lagging Examples

State of Practice

Business/ Facility/Project Planning

• Right people not included • Decisions based on reaction to changing markets; no long term perspective • Lack of documentation & information • Physical mock-ups • Standardization results in systems without neutral formats • Cost predicted based on experience/rule of thumb

• Few “what if” business case modeling applications • Update previous plans to create one for the new project • Silos of planning • Top down or bottom up analysis • 3-D modeling

Conceptual Process/Facility Design

• Manual conceptual designs • Little accommodation of technology maturation • Limited supplier interaction • Multiple/redundant data entry • Lack of standard EPC protocols for communication • Lack of access or consolidation of commonly exchanged data • Experience-based, but “lessons learned” not integrated • Little attention to enveloping technology maturation • Multiple design iterations • Low fidelity in predicting for long lead requirements • Manual markup/recreating drawings • Very high reuse of past designs; low innovation • Manual integration of design inputs from different sources using different systems • High costs due to long delivery times for equipment and materials

• 3-D designs for many elements • Attention to past experience but knowledge not systematized • M&S not integrated with design • Collaboration matrix (DuPont) • Few contractor incentives for excellence

Detailed Process/Facility Design

Detailed Engineering Design

March 2003

20

State of Art/ Best Practice • Highly integrated teams • Institutional “Lessons Learned” (e.g., Bechtel/Chevron) • Utilization of accurate costs models (e.g., Bechtel) • Standardized EPC • Front-end loading analysis (e.g., DuPont/Chevron) • Gatekeeping Reviews (e.g., DuPont) • CII Project Definition Rating Index • Moving to 4-D designs including schedule • Use of ERP to guide design/supply network • Use of M&S systems • Process Hazards Screening Review (e.g., DuPont) • Standardized design (e.g., Bechtel and Intel)

• 3-D designs • Widespread use of M&S, but not well integrated with design • Integrated costing systems • Use of CAD but with a drawing mindset instead of a data mindset

• Standardized EPC application suites (e.g., Bechtel) • Procurement cycles factored into design/schedules • Formal interface resolution process (e.g., Chevron) • Constructability review (e.g., Bechtel)

• “Lessons Learned” marginally integrated in design process • Integrated systems with vendors are not synchronized • Limited collaboration

• Web-based collaborative environments • Increasing integration of the supply network in design • Change management (e.g., Bechtel)

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Today’s systems are addressing these issues, with best-practice companies using integrated teams and structured analysis in project selection, and, in some cases, knowledge-based decision support systems are being applied.

What makes this process work is not the individual components. Rather, the real benefit is that the process is ingrained into the corporate culture. Everyone involved understands the importance of “getting it right up front,” which is the key to avoiding problems downstream.

Front-End Loading Tools Are Key to Success at DuPont DuPont, one of the world’s most diverse manufactures, applies a discipline called front-end loading (FEL) to maximize efficiencies in its capital projects. While this has nothing to do with moving dirt, it does have everything to do with assuring a solid foundation from inception for every project.

First, a Business Objectives Letter is used to create alignment between business goals and project objectives. This describes the business objectives for the project, what the business expects of the project team, and the criteria/principles that the team will follow in developing the project.

The deficiencies of the current state focus on several major concerns, all of which Gatekeeping Reviews at the end of each stage of FEL evaluate adherence to capital effectiveness best praccenter on getting a handle on ALL the data tices and business objectives. This is a prerequisite to – from seismic charts and hydrogeological going on to the next stage of the project, and gives the analysis to competitor intelligence and team an opportunity to review and gain buy-in with the commodity pricing – making sure it is corproject sponsors and business leaders. These discusrect and current, and then extracting the sions also enable all the stakeholders to interact to asvital information needed to make the best sure project success. decisions. As most capital project managers Process Hazards Screening Reviews are held to identify would attest, the biggest problems do not potential acute hazards and concerns, and to recomcome from the data you have, but rather mend any broad scope changes that could significantly from the data you lack. Scoping studies, reduce the hazards. This step also determines if detailed cost estimates, and related business funchazards reviews are needed. The review includes astions are often done with a less than full sessment of occupational health and toxicity issues, iniawareness of relevant information. All the tial hazards classifications per standards, and identificainformation needed for good decisions is tion of critical components, equipment, and systems. rarely available, so managers make best– Contributed by Judith W. Passwaters, DuPont Company guess decisions based on their experience and on input from their technical experts. If the right information is not captured up front, the right knowledge is not integrated into the planning process.

Capture and reuse of corporate experience is another area of great need. Access to knowledge about previous projects in the current state is usually limited to individual expertise and word of mouth, and lessons learned are not, in general, systematically documented or applied. A key to success for most projects is bringing on board early the managers, engineers, staff, and construction foremen who have “done it before,” who can translate their experience to smart decisions in design, planning, and execution, and who can spot problems before they snowball. This leads to another problem – access to expertise. The true expert managers are often available only to the large, high-visibility projects, and then limited or unavailable to the rest of the enterprise’s project portfolio.

Communication and decision authority are important concerns. Communication in the planning process is usually inadequate to assure understanding and agreement among all the invested stakeholders, so the foundation for decision may be less than optimum. Decision authority for a capital project usually resides in a single individual relying on the advice of the subject-matter experts, who despite best intentions may have their own agendas, blind spots, and incomplete information. The result of these deficiencies is usually conflict, cost overruns, and delays.

March 2003

21

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Leading companies are taking action to improve business planning and decision making. Across the industry: • More decisions are being made based on methodologies that support participative business case analysis and risk assessment.

• Decision support systems are emerging to guide selection of best choices and best options.

• Highly integrated project teams are involved from the beginning of the process.

• Lessons learned are formally documented and applied in the development of future projects.

• Accurate costing models, CAD and CAE systems, and clear documentation of design decisions are emerging as best practices.

The CII has created tools based on industry Best Practices that are excellent guides for project definition and planning including areas related to constructability. Other best practices focus on teambuilding and partnering. The PDRI – the Project Definition Rating Index for Building Projects – and the PDRI-I for Industrial Projects offer comprehensive checklists that support scope evaluation and identification of areas for improvement.

1.3.1.2 Conceptual Process/Facility Design Today’s biggest challenges in conceptual design include the fast pace of technology change and the difficulty in creating accurate and complete conceptual designs that support excellence in the detailed design phase. Engaging an undetermined supply network to support the design process is also problematic.

The pace of technology change is a huge issue. Even in highway construction, new underlayments and treatments are greatly extending the lifespan and serviceability of highway materials. New building materials and building processes are continually emerging.

This places a premium on a shorter design phase, while Reusable Electronic Designs quickly and efficiently integrating the latest advances Slash Time and Cost prior to and during construction. The aerospace indusBechtel is one of the world's largest engitry has faced and met similar challenges, albeit not easneering and construction firms, with over ily. The Patriot missile system that first saw action in $14.5 billion in new business booked in FY Desert Storm in the early ‘90s started life as a program 2000. Reductions in delivery time and plant called SAM-D in the 1960s – a staggering 30-year deconstruction costs are key factors in their success. To accomplish this, Bechtel initivelopment span. Aggressive efforts by industry and ated a process in the early 1990s of stangovernment both changed the defense business model dardizing power plant designs. There are and leveraged new technologies to radically reduce less than 10 standard designs, each of time-to-market. The results have been amazing: the which includes a set of process drawings winning prototype of the new, radically advanced Joint and physical models along with associated Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft started the design phase in performance and cost data.

1998 and began first flights only 2 years later in a These standard designs are stored elec“same as production” configuration which will begin tronically, enabling rapid modification and rolling off the assembly line in 2004-05. While the configuration to a specific customer rechallenges of the capital projects industry are different quirement. This process significantly refrom those of aerospace, much can be learned by applyduced the delivery time and cost of power ing lessons from other sectors. plants over the past decade including The most prevalent impact of technology change is in process selection, where disruptive change can deliver dramatic impact for better or worse. In the ideal state, facilities and structures are designed in an optimal way for specific processes or uses, and flexibility is maintained for future change. While this sounds good in March 2003

22

Egypt’s first privately owned power plant, Sidi Krir, completed within budget and ahead of schedule in December ‘01.

– Thomas Ulrich, “Bringing Power to the People,” Bechtel Briefs, April 2001. www.bechtel.com/pdf/brief0401.pdf

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE theory, it is difficult in practice. An auto factory is designed years ahead to make cars with existing processes and equipment, and to maximize utilization of existing capital equipment throughout the facility’s life. However, the emergence of the fuel cell as an alternative to internal combustion threatens to render moot much of these sunken investments. In aerospace, free-form fabrication methods are showing huge promise, but the infrastructure requirements would make existing processing plants and equipment obsolete. In these types of cases, the biggest barrier to implementation of the new technology has little to do with the technology maturity, but rather the business imperative to preserve the value of existing capital investments. The electronics industry has responded with the “fast turnaround fab” – a facility designed to produce for a limited time span, based on the most current technology, and then be changed out or decommissioned. There is no way to accurately predict and accommodate future change, but there is certainly a clear need to do a better job.

The Issue of Interoperability Lack of industry standards has long impeded management of the planning stages of capital projects.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the most visible champion for R&D that supports this need and is working towards product data standards and integrated information systems to enable more efficient project planning. A major thrust in this area is the Construction Integration and Automation Technology (CONSIAT) program, which is aimed at significantly reducing cycle time and life-cycle cost through integration and automation of project information.

Another notable NIST activity is PlantSTEP, being developed through a consortium of EPCOM companies and suppliers. The primary focus is to develop and implement data exchange standards based on ISO 10303. This effort is coordinated with related activities such as PIEBASE (Process Industries Executives for Achieving Business Advantage Using Standards for Data Exchange), a global organization for process industry consortia and companies.

The International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) is

The design process must be better integrated. The developing Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) as conceptual design should be driven by the plana basis for information sharing in engineering, conning phase, and should drive the detailed design struction, architecture, and facilities management.

IFC project models define individual buildings for process – with data entered only once. In the curwhich compliant applications can exchange inforrent state this is often not the case, and continumation accurately. Current activities include adous flow and efficient building of information as vances in XML standards to enable seamless flow the project progresses is not common practice. of text-based information via the web; development Lessons learned are not often nor effectively of IFCs to support code compliance applications shared, and although management of cost and during design; and IFCs related to cost estimating time information is improving, there is still much and scheduling. room for improvement in cost models. Design contingencies cover the uncertainties, so it is reasonable to expect contingencies to shrink as information accuracy and completeness improve.

One of the biggest uncertainties in conceptual design is caused by lack of information from the supply network. The conceptual design may precede the contract, and the suppliers may not yet be selected, or, if selected, the detailed specifications are not detailed enough to support the conceptual design. Therefore, the conceptual design is based on assumptions that may not be correct. The compression of the timeline from decision to design, the creation of the supply network early in the process, and effective communications with all stakeholders are key elements of today’s best practices.

1.3.1.3 Detailed Process/Facility Design The emergence of 3-D CAD, the use of virtual reality and simulation tools, electronic specifications and work management, and the growth of collaborative environments have driven a revolution in the way leading companies create process and facility designs.

The major deficiencies of the current state of this phase are quite similar to those of the conceptual phase.

The challenge is to flesh out the concept in sufficient detail to optimize the feasibility of the design to ac-

March 2003

23

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE complish its intended purpose, lock in the cost targets, and firm up the team and refine the plan of accomplishment for the project. This is also the phase where the design agent and the customer/end user come to grips with the realities of cost and schedule, iterating the design to achieve the best tradeoff between what the customer wants the facility to do, and what they are willing and able to pay for.

The key industry challenges are to reduce the cycle time of design iterations, and to improve the fidelity and integration of information used to drive design tradeoff decisions. In current practices, different elements of a facility design are simply “black boxes” on the engineering drawings to everyone except the person or team responsible for that element. This mindset works fine as long as the design of each element is developed to the same degree of fidelity and completeness, but any errors of omission or commission at this stage can have drastic impacts downstream in the detailed design, construction, and O&M phases.

While modeling and simulation for visualization and fit is in fairly widespread use, mathematically based simulation for process selection and detailed design lags. Enterprise models are used for visualization, but a standard hierarchical structure that supports detailed, scientifically and mathematically based models of process flows and unit processes does not yet exist to any meaningful degree.

Another deficiency is the lack of the utilization of knowledge systems for detailed design. In many sectors and applications, knowledge-based design advisors are augmenting and automating the design process.

While design advisors are emerging in the capital projects industry, utilization is low and the pace should be accelerated.

Integration and interoperability barriers limit the effectiveness of collaboration and add to the cost and time of detailed design. Seamless integration of engineering and planning systems is a goal of the capital projects industry that is shared with all sectors. These issues pervade every aspect of the capital facility life cycle, but are most critical in the detailed design phase because this is where the ultimate performance parameters and life-cycle costs of the facility are established.

The focus on seamless operations highlights the need for technologies and tools to assure that the information and processes are handed off as efficiently as possible. The diversity of processes, the lack of adherence to standards that provide neutral formats for data exchange, and the lack of a common nomenclature all hinder progress toward integration. These factors contribute to ad-hoc systems that under-perform.

Inertia and the size of the integration challenge contribute to the perpetuation of the status quo. Collaborative, focused effort is required to solve the problems that are too large and intractable for one company to resolve.

Retrofitting and renovation of existing facilities presents unique challenges in the detailed design phase.

Although the original design requirements and documentation may be accessible, they are often out of date and rarely available in digital form. As-built discrepancies are usually not discovered until the renovation is already under way, leading to a problematic array of issues such as safety hazards, redesign, and wasted time and resources.

1.3.1.4 Detailed Engineering Design The requirements of the detailed engineering design phase emphasize the absolute necessity of accurate information and documentation transferred seamlessly from the preceding design phases. In the current state for the large, integrated A&E and EPCOM firms, the various disciplines such as electrical, mechanical, piping, HVAC, etc. should utilize compatible systems, and the integration of the designs should be seamless. However, the challenge of integrating across these domains – including subcontractors and suppliers – still remains. The larger the number of companies involved, the larger this problem becomes.

Utilization of past experience and proven designs is imperative for cost-effective, timely response. Many companies have institutionalized the process to the point that configuration of a new project is almost like working a puzzle, with modular components plugged together to satisfy specific needs. While this prac-

March 2003

24

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE tice reduces design cost (and design uncertainty), it can also perpetuate less-than-optimal features and leave little room for innovation. A beneficial trend is toward the reuse of information AND knowledge to assure that every design is the best it can be.

Another characteristic of the current state is initiation of construction before the design is complete.

Portions of the design needed early to meet schedule (e.g., for long-lead items) are released while the design process continues for the rest of the project elements.

While this is believed to be a beneficial practice, releasing partial and incomplete designs introduces opportunities for error (thus requiring costly and time-consuming change orders) and greatly hinders the ability of the engineering team to optimize the design as a unified whole.

Design change management is a glaring deficiency. In many cases, even with good project management systems, the change process reverts to paper-copy and word-of-mouth methods. Some changes are made in the field unknown to the engineers, and may not be documented in the as-built drawings. The solution to this challenge is threefold. First, the change management process needs to be tightened; second, the design packages need to be complete and accurate, eliminating the need for change orders; and third, the process needs the flexibility to collaboratively review, approve, and capture changes made in the field.

Tale of the COMET: Better Design, Better Estimates In a business where installed piping can cost over $42,000 per meter, how important is an accurate estimate? When the cost of piping in power plants is often equal to the costs of all of the other bulk commodities combined, the importance is selfevident. To provide rapid and accurate estimates of material quantities, Bechtel has developed a 3D prototyping tool known as the Conceptual Modeling and Estimating Tool (COMET). COMET includes a reference database of objects and hierarchical groups of objects that enables rapid 3D modeling of a prospective project. Users can immediately access thousands of model components for all properties of any component in the model. COMET can route nearly 1,000 pipelines along with power cables and electrical raceways in less than five seconds and generate an accurate list of the quantities of materials needed in minutes. The data are then used to establish a highly reliable estimate of costs, and can also be used to pre-design large-bore piping systems. The success of COMET for piping illustrates the feasibility for developing similar applications for other bulk estimating activities, such as civil and electronic commodities.

The current state includes wasted effort due to a Jean Burke Hoppe, “Tale of the COMET,” Bechtel Briefs, Aulack of integration and collaboration between gust 2001. www.bechtel.com/pdf/ brief0801.pdf phases of the design process and design systems.

The most visible attribute of this deficiency is multiple data entry – the recreation of data simply because the originating system does not have the ability to push the design through to maturity in the desired finished form. However, perhaps even more damaging is the fact that errors in data exchanges between systems and companies can go unnoticed if they are not readily apparent.

The trend in most design organizations is towards a paperless environment. While this may work well in the office, the construction crews are expert at the art of lining drawings up on a toolbox and working through the solution. The “paperless construction site” dictates the exploration of new information delivery systems that work in the construction environment. It also dictates emphasis on training and cultural change.

Management and integration of vendor data is also problematic. Vendors are often slow to provide the necessary information for initial and detailed designs, which leads to assumptions being folded into the design basis. The lack of standards for vendor data, the lack of flexibility and the inability to use the original source data to generate the required end-user view, and the lack of assurance of the accuracy of the vendor data all lead to potential uncertainty and error in design decisions.

Global collaboration presents a new set of challenges. The collaborative environment works well, when everything else works well – when there are no conflicts. However, problem resolution still often dictates

March 2003

25

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE face-to-face discussions. Extensive requirements for stakeholder input are often costly as the span of stakeholders extends in a global context. Collaborative issues between the project team must be resolved for time zone differentials, language and culture differences, data formats, conflicting codes and standards, and the cost and availability of bandwidth, especially in remote areas. In addition, the complexities of multiple jurisdictions, regulations and standards all contribute to the difficulty in coordinating and implementing the facility design.

One technique that is working today for Bechtel Corporation involves an established partnership between the conceptual design phase and the detailed design. The conceptual design is performed at the Center of Excellence in Maryland. The detailed design is done at a low-cost design center in New Delhi. Collaborative tools and regular communication create a partnership (effectively a 24-hour design shop) that delivers power plants in shorter time and at lower cost.

While the issues highlighted in this section are yet to be fully resolved, much progress is being made. Different participants in different projects are eliminating many problems by utilizing common systems, getting involved early, and staying with the project until successful checkout and operational handover/turnover. This is not the ultimate solution, but it is good business for the firms, and reduces risks to project success. In fact, several of the large A&E firms are finding new profits in operations and maintenance activities as well. Progressive vendors are providing 3-D models of the footprint of their equipment and detailed performance models as part of the bid package – a step in the right direction.

In its recently launched Digital As-Built Documentation project, FIATECH is developing user requirements and functional components for accurate and intelligent digital models, including interoperability with commercial CAD, GIS, and maintenance and facility management systems. The goal is to “carry forward” digital designs from the design process to the follow-on phases of the facility life cycle.14 By looking at the current state, the challenge for the future is clear. More use of knowledge – not just data – from past designs, better use of modeling and simulation in assuring the desired operation of the facility, integration across diverse systems, and automation of design operations will enable more effective design to meet the requirements of the business models. However, the greatest challenge is the need to capture all the right data in the first place, from the people who are doing the work, from the vendors who are providing products and services, and from the corporate experience.

1.3.2 Construction Execution The construction industry is as old as mankind, and the traditions are deeply rooted. Therefore, change often comes more slowly than in other sectors. The construction element of the capital projects industry is in a state of flux as it responds to dramatic changes brought on by the Information Age. No matter which area you examine – material/equipment manufacture, procurement, or site construction – the ongoing evolution is very uneven. Technology-based systems handle many construction-related tasks in fantastic new ways, but the multiplicity of these new tools and the fact that few “talk” to each other adds an element of chaos to businesses that are trying hard to streamline their processes and do more and better work with fewer resources and increasingly tighter margins.

John Voeller of Black & Veatch points out that in construction execution, “The fundamentals here are exactly the same now as ten years ago or ten years from now. We must figure out a way to deliver a clear, unambiguous statement of what the task should yield, the tools to accomplish it, the resources to accomplish it, the documents to guide it, the materials to use, and the requirements that must be satisfied before the task is considered complete. Bartel Zachry of Zachry Construction was quoted as saying that if his people could be handled the teammates, tools, drawings, documents, materials and supplies needed for each crew task reliably, he could cut the cost of construction 50%.”

14

www.fiatech.org/projects/pptp.htm.

March 2003

26

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Construction is still largely a labor-intensive process driven by paper, experienced foremen, and skilled craftsmen. There are several reasons for the slow transition away from a paper-based environment. Assured configuration control and positive security of data are the overriding issues. Another is that paper is simply easier to use in the typical work environment. Still another is that construction is a very fragmented and mobile industry; local subcontractors do the vast majority of the work. Little time is spent in the office, and site management is focused on making sure the right bodies, materials, and equipment get to where they need to be. Most construction personnel find it easier and quicker to figure out what needs to be done by looking at a blueprint at the job site, mentally translating that to what needs to be done, and then using their own experience to “make it work.” Also, while digital documentation and electronic signatures are becoming more acceptable for capturing the official paper trail, industry has yet to be convinced of the ability to protect and control intellectual property. In addition, most companies and owners still prefer to have signed original paper documents in the case of audits or litigation.

A common problem is that engineering documentation often does not provide adequate information to get the job done effectively. This problem spans issues from the awareness and availability of specifications, regulations and compliance, and matching of needs and capabilities on a global basis. The norm is reliance on the experience and expertise of the staff and crew. The skills of the workforce are by and large excellent, and this state of affairs does get the job done – albeit not as well as it might.

The supply of skilled labor is a major concern. Most construction workers are temporary employees, many of whom are managed through agents at the local union hall and in the extended network of halls across the country. For many companies the skilled labor concerns extend globally, where not only are basic craft skills a concern, but language barriers present challenges in effective execution of the project.

Access to the right information by all members of the supply network is another major concern. For example, specification availability, lessons learned, and compliance documentation need to be strengthened.

Responding to RFIs is a challenge across the industry, and change management also is a major structural obstacle across all aspects of construction execution.

Language and perspective barriers between engineers, business managers, and construction staff create an inherent adversarial relationship. Engineers are concerned with the technical details and may not be sensitive to the business issues. Business managers are focused on passing final inspection on time and within budget. These facts of human nature are unlikely to change. However, the goal for all must be to design and build an end product (facility or structure) that most efficiently satisfies the customer’s intent. The project design and construction execution systems must support this goal, and technology must facilitate communication to help each integral contributor do their job as best they can. Issues like constructability, modularity, construction-driven design, codes, etc. must all be part of the design process from inception.

The challenge is, how does the front end (Engineering) know what the back end (Construction) needs to know before a project is engineered?

Communication is also critical in today’s globalized manufacturing arena. Language barriers have always been a concern, but they’re becoming a larger issue as construction becomes increasingly more global and as more information is exchanged electronically. A common vocabulary for the specification and communication of requirements for components, materials, and skills is greatly needed. Marketing departments frequently bid on opportunities without guaranteed assurance of ability to meet the requirements, on schedule. This is certainly not unique to the capital projects industry, and highlights a common problem that requirements for any complex project are subject to different interpretations.

The continuing trend toward centralized procurement causes products and services to be bought without an expert understanding of what is needed in the short- and long-term contexts, a problem heightened when multiple projects are globally dispersed. Companies also need to know that manufacture/fabrication capacity is available to back up commitments for cost and schedule performance.

March 2003

27

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE It may be fair to say that there has been little change over many years in basic materials and methods used in capital construction. The industry remains dominated by concrete and steel, and the associated construction methods required to place and assemble them. Today, more than a ton of concrete is produced each year for each human being on earth. This dominance may not change quickly, but the characteristics will. While advances in secondary systems such as windows, interior/exterior surfaces, roofing, mechanical, electrical, controls, and communications have led to better safety, energy efficiency, environmental impact, reduced maintenance, and improved durability, the construction of primary structures has seen little change in the last several decades.

Construction processes and methods continue to be incrementally improved. For example, many structures are now simultaneously erected above-ground and excavated below-ground by first sinking the structure into the ground then building upward from the structure while at the same time excavating and building substructure. Innovations in joint technologies have replaced labor-intensive bolting and riveting with engineered connections that use slotted joints locked by rapid welds (which also improves force distribution for earthquake-prone regions). Trends such as these are setting the stage for breakthroughs in the fundamental ways that structures are designed and assembled. However, it should be pointed out that innovations in construction methods and techniques can take years to permeate industry, since such innovations typically compete with long-entrenched standards.

Off-the-shelf technologies are having significant impact in many ways. GPS and 3-D laser positioning is more frequently being used for site excavation, terrain contouring, and material placement. Positioning data is transmitted and integrated with the hydraulics in earthmoving equipment to control elevation, cross-slope contour, and position for accurate and low-cost excavation, reducing the need for high operator skill and ground-based personnel for field measurement. The pace of development and integration of these kinds of technologies needs to be rapidly accelerated across the spectrum of construction processes to enhance the global competitiveness of the industry.

Table 1.3.2-1 provides a top-level characterization of the current state of industry regarding construction execution, which is discussed in further detail below.

Table 1.3.2-1. State Map for Construction Execution Sub-Element Manufacture/ Fabrication

March 2003

Lagging Examples

State of Practice

State of Art/ Best Practice

• Steel shop, pipe shop, and other crafts go through a redundant process by recreating drawings for their own use. This data becomes disconnected from other planning. The shop floor is paperbased because projects are hard to visualize on a computer screen.

• Few advances in basic materials and methods

• Still a paper-driven process with inefficient info exchange • Extensive use of high-quality, standard materials and prefabricated components

• Sketch tools for capturing pipe reroutes • Similar sketch tool for construction inspection simultaneously allows multiple submissions • Integrating preferred suppliers offers benefits for standard processes • Airships being used to transport large components to sites

28

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Lagging Examples

State of Practice

State of Art/ Best Practice

Procurement & Staging

Sub-Element

• Source selection and qualification slows procurement process • Focus on low bids instead of the right bids • Disconnects between design, purchasing, and construction – what was bought may be what was spec’d, but not what is really needed

• 75% confidence in top suppliers’ deliveries • Enormous proliferation in specifications • Severe problems with site theft

Construction & PreCommissioning

• Budget and designs often presented after the fact to justify the outcome • Very high reliance on construction team to “make it work” • Extensive inspection & rework • Change management nonexistent or poor • Little or no documentation for incoming operations staff

• Strong focus on using modern tools & equipment, modular designs & components • In-process inspections

• Major concrete supplier in Mexico City keeps trucks on road constantly to speed delivery • Good balance between longlead and just-in-time practices • Coordinated acquisition reform to eliminate barriers to efficient procurement (e.g., Alliance for Construction Excellence, Design/Build Institute initiatives) • 3 and 4-D design for major and minor systems • Construction planners using Intergraph to check on-site construction visualization planning and work package creation

Startup/ Commissioning & Handover

• Documentation still inaccurate and incomplete

• Comprehensive startup plans & procedures in place as soon as construction is complete • Operations team involved in design/procurement/construction/commissioning

1.3.2.1 Manufacture/Fabrication This sub-element addresses the materials, equipment, and products that are brought to the job site. It includes the fabrication, both on and offsite, of modules and systems that become part of the capital facility.

Materials of construction have remained much the same over the last few decades, and changes may continue to be evolutionary instead of revolutionary. Concrete, steel, and lumber continue to dominate the industry, with present trends pressuring the wood products. The driver is performance at low cost. Examples of present trends may point to future directions. The rising prices for wood have made steel studs cost effective alternatives, and the shift is rather dramatic. Structures Insulated Panel Systems (SIPS), modules that provide insulation and structural support and lock in place, may be the forerunner of the next wave of wall construction. Corrugated panels are replacing brick and mortar for cost effective industrial buildings.

Steel dominates the structural applications, with more pressure toward lighter weight, high strength materials. Cost effective composite structures are looking more promising for some applications; however new material systems are finding acceptance paced by the slow development of business opportunities. Composite technologies are being developed for use in many types of structures, including enhancement and refurbishment of existing structures. Composite structures manufactured by pultrusion methods can produce small bridge decking segments that weigh about 20% of traditional concrete decks. Larger composite structure systems are undergoing testing to better understand long-term performance and degradation modes. Scaling these technologies up to enable a wider expanse of applications is a challenge. The economics of alternate materials are being studied to understand the dynamics of manufacturing and placement costs, which are highly influenced by market volumes.

Hybrid systems such as plastic fiber reinforced wood laminates have extended the yield and application of laminate structure by improving the consistency, stability, and capability of wood based products. Many

March 2003

29

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE other fiber reinforcement strategies are being investigated for enhancing the capabilities of traditional materials.

Advances in protectants and coatings are extending the life of many material systems. Elimination of corrosive effects on surfaces and internal reinforcing for new and existing structure is the focus of new antiicing fluids and cleaning systems.

Concrete is at once a blessing and a curse. It is cheap and available. However, it is difficult to transport and place, and the curing times slow progress. For concrete placement, efficient pumping, precision placement, and prefabricated, modular forming systems are having an impact. Concrete technologies continue to improve, but at a slow pace. The basic manufacturing processes for production of the elements of concrete (cement, aggregate, and additives) have followed basic improvement trends for cost, energy efficiency, and cycle time reduction. However, a highly fragmented and inherently small-company industrial base inhibits research into alternate materials, production, and delivery methods. While some parts of the industry are dominated by large, in some cases multinational corporations (i.e., the cement industry), the most significant barrier to innovation is the high capital cost for new facilities. It is often easier to justify additional capacity where the market is understood, than to add capacity for a new product.

Innovative ways to apply technologies such as lightweight prefabricated aerated concrete structures and steel-free concrete decking systems are expanding the use of traditional materials, but not forcing the development of alternate materials to replace industry norms. Future directions for concrete are toward faster cure rates, easier placement, lighter weight, and higher strength for thinner layers.

The need for progress in construction materials has not gone unnoticed. In January 2001, the American Concrete Institute published Vision 2030, which outlines numerous goals for improved concrete manufacturing and material performance.15 The Partnership for the Advancement of Infrastructure and Its Renewal (PAIR) initiative echoes this call with goals for new and improved materials such as fiberreinforced composites) for bridges.16 The Materials Technology Institute in its 1998 technology roadmap identifies a wide range of needs for improvement and fundamental research in materials relevant to chemical processing facilities.17 Key barriers identified by the Institute include: • Limited ability to model material interactions • Lack of fundamental understanding of materials • Limited understanding of degradation in new materials • Limits on manufacturability/size and shape • Lack of support/user participation in development of codes and standards for new materials • Inability to apply life-cycle costs on a consistent basis, incorporating the role of materials • Lack of reliable, cost-effective, on-line self-sensing methods • Lack of inexpensive strong, corrosion-resistant materials with low life cycle costs • Risk involved with using new materials.

For manufacture and fabrication, the challenges are similar to other manufacturing challenges. Getting all of the information needed to fabricate the right components that will plug into the jobsite is a challenge.

The error rates are usually high, many times due to disconnects in information and interpretation. Many construction sites operate a fabrication shop, which is set up for efficient manufacture of piping systems, 15

Vision 2030: A Vision for the U.S. Concrete Industry, American Concrete Institute, January 2001.

Belle, Richard A., The PAIR Initiative: Repairing and Revitalizing our Nation’s Physical Infrastructure, Public Roads magazine, December 1999. www.tfhrc.gov.

17 Technology roadmap for Materials of Construction, Operation, and Maintenance in the CPI, Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Processing Industries, December 1998.

16

March 2003

30

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE electrical panels, and other components. The connection between the shop and the construction site may be close enough that communication issues can be handled with little difficulty. For offsite fabrication, the intent and all specifications must be clearly communicated in the design, and the cost and delivery must be based on satisfying these requirements. Fabrications are usually one-of-a-kind, so the efficiency may be low and the costs may be high, which makes automation and other manufacturing techniques of questionable applicability.

A prime consideration in the manufacture/fabrication element of construction execution is make/buy decision-making and how the decision process and information outputs support and are supported by the design and project management systems. Shipping, cost considerations (especially labor), retrofitting, contractual/labor issues, regulations, delivery schedule, and other aspects must be assessed in a constrained decision loop that yields the best decisions for each project. In many cases, the project managers and supervisors in the field make these decisions based on what is needed and what resources are available on hand.

1.3.2.2 Procurement & Staging The core challenge in procuring products, materials, equipment, and services for the active job site is to buy the right thing and get it where it needs to be, on time. Today’s typically centralized procurement structures often lack the in-depth knowledge and understanding to always “buy right,” although too often the definition of what is “right” isn’t determined until the resource is delivered to the construction site. An enormous proliferation of specifications adds to the problem. What’s needed is a procurement system that effectively, accurately, and definitively defines the requirements, iterates those requirements until everyone clearly understands and agrees with them, and then buys and delivers the goods and services on schedule.

Source qualification/selection and getting contracts in place on time can have a significant bearing on project schedules. Delays in authorization to purchase long-lead-time items, or the unpleasant discovery that essential materials are back-ordered with no promise of delivery, can bring construction operations to a screeching halt while the payroll continues to burn.

The multi-project sourcing strategies now used by many companies to save money often adds to the difficulty and requires increased sophistication for specifying, tracking, delivering, and managing product flow. In government projects, legislative directives frequently limit a project’s choice of suppliers. Industry forums can and should be used to educate legislators and remove the most frustrating obstacles. A good example of how this can work is the Design/Build Institute of America, which is working to change federal regulations to move away from low bid to performance-based criteria. Another example is the Alliance for Construction Excellence at Arizona State, which has been instrumental in spearheading legislative changes.

The challenge in materials management is to optimize site management with a non-site-specific supply network. The key is to more closely integrate supply with schedule and move to pull-driven construction to supply the job site with procured materials and hardware at the proper time in the schedule to minimize on-site storage, staging, and movement. Some of the same principles of just-in-time that work well for manufacturers can and are being applied in construction. Lack of confidence (and poor visibility) in the supply network hinders implementation, however. One innovative solution is to stage materials in nonfixed locations. In Mexico City, a major concrete supplier keeps loaded trucks on the road on a continual basis so that concrete can be delivered more quickly on demand.

Once materials are on site, the two major considerations are receiving inspection, and tracking and placing of materials. Preventing damage or degradation through preventive maintenance and deterring/preventing theft are often major considerations to keep materials build-ready, especially since many builders stockpile materials on site to avoid schedule snafus. Theft of tools and materials is a pernicious

March 2003

31

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE and costly problem due to high values, easy portability, the transient nature of the workforce, and the cost and difficulty of maintaining security on construction sites.

Except at remote industrial locations, few builders devote resources to receiving inspection except in the case of special materials, since most construction materials are commodity items of consistently adequate quality. Given the huge volume of materials that go into a capital facility, it is much more efficient to rely on workers and supervisors to spot problems as individual items of material are drawn from the stock.

Storing and staging materials on-site is usually a very ad-hoc process that relies on the people who need the material to know where it’s stacked and to grab an expediter or truck driver whenever something needs to be moved into position for use, using whatever transport resource is handy. This process works, and gets the job done, but is incredibly wasteful of time and labor.

Airships Offer Solution to Large Transport Challenge Transport and delivery of massive structures and equipment has always been a major challenge for large capital construction projects, but help may be on the way. CargoLifter AG of Berlin is developing a 260-meter-long, 65-meter-wide airship for transport of oversized and heavy goods weighing up to 160 metric tons. The CargoLifter CL 160 is a “flying crane” that will be able to carry out expensive heavy transports faster, more simply, and more cost-efficiently without ever touching the ground and almost entirely independent from the local infrastructure.

CargoLifter is working with 39 industrial companies, including sector giants such as General Electric Power, Unocal Corporation, industrial plant builders Voest-Alpine and Ferrostaal AG, and SÜÜBA Cooperation, one of Germany’s largest construction companies, to develop and pilot this innovative concept.

1.3.2.3 Construction & Pre-Commissioning One of the major challenges in the construction and pre-commissioning phase is data gathering and sharing. Information regarding project status, personnel, workflow, and equipment/material location and status must be captured using processes and systems that keep all participants informed and on track doing what needs to be done. Currently, information sharing and collaboration are inefficient and require frequent face-to-face meetings with owners, contractors, subcontractors, engineers, laborers, and others.

Site computing systems are not standardized or able to interact with other systems to provide more than limited information. Examples of information that is often not captured and communicated effectively include the impact of business decisions, lessons learned, as-built status, and site conditions. The expense, incompatibility, limitations, and complexity of current project delivery management systems often replaces one set of challenges with new ones that aren’t any easier to solve, just different.

Despite advances in information technology that have revolutionized other sectors and other phases of the capital project life cycle, a successful project still boils down to a smart, experienced workforce poring over blueprints and applying their skills with the available materials to get the job done right, on time.

The human element is always a huge factor in construction, and turnover (especially in crafts), training, union issues, and a shrinking skilled labor and construction management pool are all problems without easy solutions. In many cases, on-site training and certification of craft skills is required to ensure a ready workforce, consuming both time and resources during the construction phase. The debate between company-paid training and worker responsibility for training and certification is an old one. Since the workforce is usually temporary and wages have traditionally been relatively high, the unions have taken the lead (often in partnership with local contractors) in assuring worker training. However, with liability issues increasing, companies now focus on training for specific tasks and for regulatory compliance. Where this responsibility will reside in the future is an open question.

In today’s increasingly mechanized world, an additional challenge is how to “de-skill” and “re-skill” the job site. As with the automotive sector in the 1960s-80s, construction is moving towards an environment where craftspeople operate machines instead of manual tools and may ultimately use processes that re-

March 2003

32

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE place skilled craftspeople (e.g., pipe welders) with entirely automated processes. In areas where automation support has created opportunity – such as trenchless pipe laying – skill requirements have increased significantly. Management is not necessarily cognizant of workforce technology proficiency, and technology is not packaged to be usable on “dirty” construction sites. Managing the shift from today’s workforce – built on individual skill and pride in performance– to tomorrow’s activity-driven environment is a looming challenge.

Perspectives and cultural issues also come into play among the project management, engineering personnel, and construction staffs. In most cases, construction workers are free-lancers who make a living with their portfolio of skills and certifications. They may have no organizational identity with the owner/operator, or even to the construction company that is doing the job. Their allegiance is often to the union hall, and their next job is next week a few miles up the road. Even so, the rugged individualism of the construction worker and the dedication to getting the job done is the key to project success. Longerterm alignments, methods to secure longer-term commitments from the companies to the workforce and vice versa, and shared rewards are needed to stabilize the availability of a trained and motivated workforce.

Temporary systems and on-site waste also are areas where better methods are needed. A significant amount of time and expense is associated with the repeated fabrication/disassembly and management of temporary systems such as scaffolding, material handling/lifting and placement equipment, and fixtures/forms. Alternatives need to be developed to reduce or eliminate this large component of non-valueadded time and expense. Some progress is being made with new scaffolding systems and forms for placement of concrete that become part of the structure and add to the structural soundness.

Waste in all forms is inherent with current construction operations. There has been little progress in adopting the lean practices that have transformed many sectors of manufacturing. There are great examples where automotive, aerospace, electronics, and other sectors have increased productivity and costeffectiveness by reducing cycle time, scrap, and rework. Another kind of waste – construction scrap – is becoming a bigger problem. The practice of “throw it all in a hole and cover it up” simply doesn’t work any more. Hazardous materials amplify this concern. Reducing and eliminating waste in every way is good business for the construction industry.

Construction tools have benefited the most from technology evolution. Modern tractors, earth movers, cranes, lifts, drills, lathes, saws, nail guns, paint sprayers, surveying and alignment systems, and more have all but eliminated the kinds of breakdowns and glitches that have frustrated construction teams since the invention of the hammer. Rechargeable battery packs have eliminated miles of extension cords, and the greatly improved quality and increased form/fit standardization of prefabricated components (doors, windows, shingles, wiring, pipe, insulation, etc.) have greatly enhanced productivity by reducing downtime and rework.

The challenge of pre-commissioning is to make sure that the structure or facility is ready for activation. A master checklist guides the testing of each individual element of the finished facility or structure to assure that the parts and the whole are ready to perform. This phase inevitably uncovers the need for rework to fix everything that wasn’t properly welded, attached, connected, sealed, painted, installed, aligned, grounded, etc. The real need in this area is not to improve the way pre-commissioning is done, but to prevent or catch these kinds of problems during the construction phase, so that the final walkthrough is just that – a walkthrough. This requires both better execution processes and tools, and a new view of quality control and sign-off than is currently in use.

1.3.2.4 Startup/Commissioning & Handover One of the critical elements of the transition from the construction phase to the operations phase is the availability of documentation that accurately depicts how the facility or building was constructed. Accurate capture of the as-built configuration and the ability to reconcile the as-built and as-designed configu-

March 2003

33

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE rations are pervasive deficiencies. In the worst cases, flaws that nobody caught in the design phase become obvious when the incoming operations staff finds valves and access panels that can’t be reached without a ladder, office areas without electrical sockets, “high bay” areas with only 8-foot ceilings, or an HVAC air intake next to the exhaust duct for a hazardous chemical processing unit. While good practices throughout the construction process minimize these kinds of issues, better systems that prevent problems on the front end – in design – are clearly needed. One of the strongest elements of this issue going forward is the use of bus-based plant or building control systems. These can eliminate a massive portion of not only the start-up/commissioning effort but contribute over the entire life-cycle to improving the maintain/repair/operate/retrofit (MROR) efforts.

Every facility, no matter how similar it might be to another, is unique. Therefore, the startup process is also unique. The facility designers typically write startup plans with input from operations staff, but these plans are often little more than a stepwise guide to what needs to be done.

Training of the operations workforce is another area of critical need. Startup invariably brings together a small cadre of experienced engineers and operations staff with a large group of nominally Corrosion Sensor Cuts Costs, trained and inexperienced new hires, all of Improves Safety whom must work together as a team to get the In an effort to cut aircraft maintenance costs, the facility first up and running, and then running Office of Naval Research (ONR) is funding developwell.

Documentation and training materials may initially consist of whatever is available from the various equipment vendors. Almost universally, the operations team must develop its own manuals and training materials – a process which can take years to create truly useful materials.

Other challenges already mentioned in other elements of construction execution pertain to startup/commissioning and handover/turnover, such as change management, data capture, and information sharing. Performance testing and handover/turnover of as-built materials and systems (e.g., printed and electronic reports, drawings, and equipment guides) is an additional challenge that requires integration and accommodation of post-design data and information from systems delivered by multiple suppliers.

ment of a miniature sensor that detects corrosion before it becomes a problem. The sensor combines bimetallic thin-film microsensor technology developed by the Naval Air Warfare Center with microelectronics and RF communications technology developed by Systems & Process Engineering Corp.

(SPEC) of Austin, Texas.

The sensor works like a battery. When two dissimilar metals are connected in a corrosive environment, a small current flows from one metal to the other. The current is proportional to the corrosivity of the environment. For instance, high moisture levels with salt or acid aerosols are very corrosive.

SPEC’s electronics unit measures this current with a very sensitive, wide-range amplifier and converts the measurement into a digital number. A low-power microcomputer then captures and stores the readings.

Potential applications of this technology include monitoring of pipelines and storage tanks, water incursion under roads, humidity in cleanrooms, water in engine or transformer oil, and structural integrity of civilian structures.

– Cynthia Nishikawa, Office of Naval Research, nishikc@onr.navy.mil.

March 2003

34

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

1.3.3 Life Cycle Support It is difficult to make broad generalizations about the state of the capital projects industry with regards to life-cycle support, since there are few attributes that apply in all cases. The nation’s capital facilities and structures span an incredibly broad range of functions, from roads and bridges to chemical processing facilities and power plants, and vary in age from brand-new to tens of decades old. At this top level, however, the CPTR workshop group made several salient observations: • Facility designers, driven by cost pressures based on an existing business model, often drive the design to minimize total installed cost (TIC) at the expense of total cost of ownership (TCO). Owners and operators must live with the consequences of TIC-based decisions for many years although the business model may change.

• Limited data is available to help designers make the best decisions about life-cycle issues in the design phase. Given the long lifespan of the typical capital facility or structure, the timelines for feedback of operational experience are extremely long. Given the extreme disparity of available information (content, format, standards, etc.), it is difficult to extrapolate experience from one facility project to another at more than a gross level.

• It is impossible to make meaningful predictions about technology advances and regulatory changes that will have major life-cycle implications for the facility or structure downstream in the future.

The fidelity of such predictions declines geometrically in proportion to the time scales involved.

• “Legacy issues” will always exist. Since materials, standards, techniques, and technologies will always change over time, designers and owner/operators will always face significant challenges in addressing legacy complications in maintenance, upkeep, renovation, upgrade, refurbishment, and ultimate decommissioning and disposal of facilities and structures – including their supporting information systems.

• Emerging technologies such as virtual reality modeling language (VRML) offer the potential to completely model a capital project design with mathematical accuracy as well as visual fidelity, and to link live design and status information to all elements of the simulation. Coupled with low-cost pervasive sensors networked to create a completely integrated and instrumented facility, “living models” offer the opportunity to radically reduce the cost and improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of facility operation, maintenance, repair, upgrades, refurbishments, renovation, and ultimate D&D. Table 1.3.3-1 provides a top-level characterization of the current state of industry regarding life-cycle actions, which is discussed in further detail below.

March 2003

35

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 1.3.3-1. State Map for Life-Cycle Support Sub-Element

Lagging Examples

State of Practice

Operation & Maintenance

• Calendar maintenance • Reactive maintenance/repair • Insufficient Ops personnel awareness of non-ops issues that impact Ops • Minimize installed facility cost (no longterm LCC view) • No access to accurate as-built info • Manual processes • Chronic under-budgeting – “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” • Total reliance on O&M personnel experience and vendors’ technical expertise

• • • • • •

Upgrades & Refurbishment

• Lack of accurate and complete understanding – old engineering drawings and data on 5-inch floppies, or no drawings at all; mixed standard & metric measurement systems • No update of drawings to as-built/asmodified configurations; PIDs bear little resemblance to reality • “Minimum change” mentality – limited or no operability reviews or LCC considerations • Risk uncertainty/aversion (no formal quantification/assessment) • Little rigor in planning = massive cost overruns (e.g., Boston “Big Dig”)

• 3-D models in oil/gas industries; less in other industries; typically no 3-D CAD/GIS in buildings – “cartoons” of electrical/mechanical systems • Models not carried through to O&M phase – real ops data not loaded back into models • Major renovations get similar rigor as new designs • Good (but not complete) consideration of both legacy issues and downstream impacts of renovation decisions

March 2003

36

Scheduled & predictive maintenance Some reliability-centered maintenance Good automation at critical points Lowest-bidder mentality Inadequate budgeting for O&M Some access to as-built data – databased systems • Different systems (people, too) not integrated • Some use of commercial products such as SAP to provide some integration • Strong reliance on O&M personnel experience and vendors’ technical expertise

State of Art/ Best Practice • Reliability-centered maintenance (NASA, airlines, USN/USAF) • O&M addressed on front end through “Best value” procurement emphasizing Total Cost of Ownership vs. Total Installed Cost approach (UK Deryk Eke; British Airport Authority • Interactive access to as-built data and reliability info (Boeing wearable maint. computer; cruise ships; Shell/Conoco offshore platforms) • Automated central facility control system (Smithsonian) • Maintenance integral to design and operations (Shell, Conoco, Smithsonian) • Proactive, smart maintenance (SAP implementation at Conoco UK plant) • Smart equipment, and smart personnel with advanced training • 3-D virtual “walk-through” visualization models for planning and designing airport expansions, offshore platforms, and other high-cost major renovations • Near real-time update of configuration baseline (Boeing 777 mfg ops) • Aggressive extraction, reclamation, and recycle of usable materials (e.g., metals, carpeting) • Best efforts at addressing both legacy issues and downstream impacts of renovation decisions

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Sub-Element

Lagging Examples

State of Practice

Decommissioning/ Disposal

• “Blow it up and haul it off” (buildings & structures) • “Hang a new shingle out front” (brownfield facilities) • “Fence it off” (offshore oil platforms, DoD WW II structures, DOE waste management areas) • “Let someone else deal with it” (gasoline storage tanks)

• Good engineering planning for D&D, but strongest focus is on least cost with minimum compliance to letter of EPA requirements, Superfund/CERCLA/ RCRA laws • Recycle and refurb/resale of components and materials into existing market channels – concrete into roadbeds, structural steel, tires into asphalt • Incineration/landfill • Refurb instead of demolish/dispose • Encapsulation and long-term storage of hazardous materials

March 2003

37

State of Art/ Best Practice • Preplanned life-cycle actions provided for at major intervals and end of life • Aggressive recycle of useful materials • Proactive treatment of contaminated and hazardous materials – plasma arc incineration, vitrification, etc.

• Take all the way down to green-field • Innovative approaches to intractable problems (DOE Fernald project recycled rad metals to make rad storage containers) • Offshore platforms converted to reefs – Chevron, BP; ships converted to floating production facilities – Chevron & Exxon • Strip mines converted to agricultural use – Buchardt Garden (former concrete mine converted to vineyard) • Recycle of asphalt into new roadbeds – Ontario • Recycled forest products – Weyerhaeuser • Systematic recycle/refurb/resale (web-based interchange) of eqpt & facilities; Fluor Exchange • Brownfield reuse – DOE K-25 Site • “Cradle to cradle” commodity material mgmt – product reincarnation (Leased carpet)

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 1.3.3.1 Operation & Maintenance The current state of operation and maintenance (O&M) for capital facilities and structures spans a wide range. Modern U.S. chemical processing plants are models of precision and efficiency compared to most other kinds of product manufacturing facilities. This is in large part due to the rigorous safety, health, and process control needs of such facilities, and the continuous-flow nature of their operations. Where an outof-spec operation at an auto plant might result in a batch of parts being sent back for rework, a similar condition in a drug manufacturing plant results in a product that can only be thrown out. O&M problems also can lead to catastrophic events such as occurred at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Bhopal, India.

The key to effective O&M is “condition assessment” – the ability to know how well a facility’s processes, equipment, and structures are doing at any point in time, so that necessary maintenance and repairs can be performed as required. Current maintenance practices employ three techniques: 1) Scheduled, where maintenance is done at predetermined intervals based on OEM specifications and engineering judgment.

2) Reactive, where maintenance is performed when a problem occurs or processes are observed to be out-of-spec.

3) Predictive, which uses a combination of engineering calculations and operational experience to determine what maintenance needs to be performed when, to keep processes operating in tune with minimal intervention.

Predictive maintenance is a key element of the reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) concept. RCM is predicated upon understanding the reliability drivers of a system, process, facility, or item of equipment, as expressed in terms such as mean time between failure (MTBF); and upon having a solid understanding of the possible failure modes as gleaned using formal failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) techniques.

The goal of all three practices is to maximize uptime at the lowest possible cost. None of the techniques alone can assure 100% continuous efficient operation, so most facilities apply all three depending on the nature of the operations. Structures are a different matter. Roads and bridges typically receive only haphazard inspection, and in many cases deteriorate to the point where users are at risk – or a failure occurs – before the structure receives any attention.

Advances in automation, sensing, precision equipment, materials of construction, and process control have enabled great strides in reducing and simplifying maintenance requirements for all kinds of facili-

In ongoing research at NIST, VRML models provide a web-based 3-D view of the facility under construction and in operation, serving as a testbed for exploring the presentation of information relevant to the construction process.

March 2003

38

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE ties, process, systems, and equipment. Disciplines such as design for reliability, design for maintainability, and design for repairability have greatly enhanced the ability of facility operators to minimize downtime and get operations back on line when problems occur.

Despite these advances, significant challenges remain. Key needs include: • Improved ability to coordinate and integrate planned and unplanned changes over time • Improved, accurate feedback of operational data – reliability, performance, cost, etc. – to support technical and business decision processes such as risk assessment and mitigation.

• Availability of accurate, comprehensive baseline data on equipment and systems so that maintenance strategies can be engineered on up-front for optimization of cost and performance.

• Standardization of data and systems interfaces, and improved understanding of O&M costs and impacts, so that capital facility/structure designs can be engineered for operability and maintainability from the inception of the design phase.

• Industry-wide uniform cost control structures (cost codes), so that experience and performance data can be widely shared and applied, with appropriate protection of competitive data, across different companies and sectors.

• Greater consideration (based on accurate and comprehensive data) of O&M impacts in the design phase, where those costs can be influenced to the largest degree.

“More and better knowledge and information” is a key theme in this area. The most pernicious problem, in the view of the workshop team, is that the decisions having the greatest effect on O&M are made by people who either lack a deep understanding of O&M issues, or who simply don’t have accurate information to make the best decisions about factors that ultimately drive O&M performance. Disciplines such as concurrent engineering, total quality management, and integrated product design are enabling the O&M community to “weigh in” earlier and with a greater voice in the design process, but in many cases they lack the hard data needed to truly optimize designs up front for O&M performance. This includes developing an understanding of why an enterprise is in business and the relationship of facility output to company profits. Moreover, having bad data is often worse than having none at all, since information is assumed accurate unless it has obvious flaws.

Materials of construction are a fundamental

March 2003

39

FIATECH LCDM Project Pursues Integrated Information Management for Plant Assets The goal of FIATECH’s Life Cycle Data Management (LCDM) Project is to define technology requirements and business drivers for achieving integrated plant asset information management, and to facilitate establishment of technologies and business processes for the full plant life cycle. Technical tasks include: • Re-using Engineering Information – Define the requirements and work processes to re-use design information in ongoing O&M. • Mapping the Plant Information Life Cycle – Outline and map data requirements and movement for facility life-cycle activities, with data generation sources by discipline, work process implications, and degree of data integrity.

• Delivering Project Information to Operations – Outline what and how facility design-generated information adds value to O&M, and how this information (including legacy data) gets to and is implemented by O&M. • Application of Data Standards & Open Systems – Build awareness and gain broader industry participation in review and comment on evolving industry standards. Simplify the 'alphabet soup' of standards in order to facilitate industry IT development.

Project participants will be the first to use the LCDM technology tools and supporting applications. The project is led by the FIATECH Owner/Operator Forum (OOF), a partnership of DuPont, Merck, Air Products, Dow, and BASF to encourage technology vendors to develop standard data models, open interfaces, and other mechanisms for information sharing and re-use.

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE source of maintenance and repair issues, since simple friction – wear and tear – along with structural stress and corrosion, are at the root of virtually every maintenance requirement. A 1998 report by the Materials Technology Institute outlines key barriers to higher-performing materials for chemical processing industries as: • Limited ability to model materials interactions • Lack of fundamental understanding of materials • Limited understanding of degradation in new materials • Limits on manufacturability/size and shape • Lack of support/user participation in development of codes and standards for new materials • Inability to apply life cycle costs on a consistent basis, incorporating the role of materials • Lack of reliable, cost-effective, on-line self-sensing methods • Lack of inexpensive, strong, corrosion-resistant material with low life-cycle costs • Risk involved with using new materials.18 Skills and training of O&M staff is another issue that must be addressed across industry. In the view of more than one member of the workshop team, “O&M staff could do a far better job if they understood the ‘why’ instead of simply the ‘what’. ” Mechanisms are needed not only to provide personnel with initial training, but also to enable them to better capture and share knowledge through operational experience.

Another frustration is that in many areas the technology exists to make radical improvements in O&M, but that most owner/operators typically do not invest enough time and energy in understanding the value proposition of new technological solutions. “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” is a pervasive mindset, and the developers of beneficial new technologies often lack the in-depth operational insight and cost data to make a convincing business case, or to truly optimize their products to meet the needs of the end users.

Lack of physically and heuristically valid operational process models/simulations is a major barrier here.

Interchangeability of capital and O&M costs is another perplexing issue due to the way major projects are financed. Given current business rules and practices, total installed cost (TIC) is the overriding driver of the design phase. This seems foolish considering that the cost of a typical facility (such as a building) represents only 10% or less of the total cost of ownership, but the nature of the financing for such projects dictates that TIC is a hard ceiling. The real challenge, then, is to optimize for O&M within the limits imposed by TIC. This requires that the owner/operator be a true “full partner” with the design/engineering agent from project inception. Cost IS the #1 concern relative to O&M in every industry, a theme that pervades all studies on the subject. A 1999 report by the NSTC’s Subcommittee on Construction and Building calls for 50% reduction in O&M costs across the industry19, and the TIC vs. TOC paradigm must change if that goal is ever to be reached.

1.3.3.2 Upgrades & Refurbishment Although O&M is the primary driver of life-cycle costs, decisions about upgrading and refurbishing capital facilities and structures are even more problematic. When is it the time to stop repairing something, and replace it? What actions can be taken to extend life before that approach becomes cost-prohibitive?

If it is replaced with something different, will it work as advertised? How will that change affect the rest of the facility? What solutions are consistent with the overall facility life expectancy?

18

Technology Roadmap for Materials of Construction, Operation and Maintenance in the Chemical Process Industries, Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Process Industries, Inc., December 1998.

19 Snell, Jack E. and Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Interagency Program for Technical Advancement in Construction and Building, National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Construction and Building, 1999.

March 2003

40

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Functionality, cost, and regulatory compliance are of course the overriding driver in making these kinds of decisions. The current industry rule of thumb is that maintenance and upgrades are budgeted at about 2% to 4% of current replacement value.

Upgrade and refurbishment is typically a microcosm of the entire EPC cycle, but pose a different set of challenges than a greenfield project. The challenge is to execute and coordinate projects within the context and constraints of the existing facility or structure. Bridges and roads are a particularly glaring example of this difference.

The nature of the facility drives the decision process. Buildings, roads, bridges, and similar structures can be operated for decades with only the occasional refurbishing, re-plumbing, rewiring, repainting or repaving to remain serviceable and compliant with changing codes. These kinds of costs are predictable, with the major variable being monetary inflation over time – which is not to say that this is easily addressed, considering the current state of the nation’s aging highways and bridges. Historical preservation and environmental issues can be a significant issue, as in the case of historical buildings where renovations must duplicate or emulate techniques and materials no longer in use.

Upgrading and refurbishing of processing facilities (refineries, chemical plants, power plants, and other kinds of manufacturing facilities) is complex because of the need to assure a continuously competitive bottom line. Costs must be recoverable within a reasonable timeframe, in a manner that can be absorbed by pricing. The renovations must be done in a way that minimizes disruption of existing operations and systems, so as to ensure continuity of operations and prevent any health and safety impacts to the workforce.

Major challenges in this domain include: • Limited accuracy and completeness of configuration documentation vs. as-built reality, particularly in older facilities that have undergone prior renovation and repair.

• Limited or no availability of the original supporting design decision data (e.g., engineering analyses) for older facilities/structures.

• Limited availability and usability of original design data, which requires re-creation.

• Compliance with changing codes, and integration of upgrades in accordance with current codes/standards in facilities originally built to different codes/standards.

• Integration of new and old technologies in building infrastructure and process systems (HVAC, pumps, valves, piping, insulation, etc.), particularly where legacy parts and materials are no longer available • Dealing with outdated and hazardous materials such as wiring, insulation (i.e., asbestos), lead paints, and PCBs. • Incrementally updating the facility/structure baseline to keep current with changes.

• Lack of a systematic methodology (e.g., business and engineering models) with which to make the best decisions about renovations and upgrades, so as to mitigate risk, reduce cost uncertainty, and prevent scope creep.

This area also faces the same kinds of challenges as the O&M area as described in Section 5.1.2 above, including: • Availability of operational data to support technical and business decision processes.

• Standardization of data and information about materials, equipment, and systems, with sufficient technical detail on physical properties to support engineering processes.

March 2003

41

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Industry-wide uniform cost control structures (cost codes), so that experience can be shared across companies and sectors.

• Greater consideration of downstream upgrade and refurbishment requirements in the original design phase, where the costs and complexity of such life-cycle actions can be influenced to the largest degree.

Reconciliation of as-built drawings to support renovations is a pervasive problem, but new technologies are making this problem easier to address. 3-D laser scanning is providing an easy and precise way to capture as-built configurations for facilities and structures where the original design documentation is missing, incomplete, or inaccurate. A recent project by Shell Oil Co. used 3-D scanning and modeling tools to support renovation of its offshore platform at Forcados, Nigeria (Figure 1.3.3.2-1). Shell had the 2-D AutoCAD drawings originally used to construct the platform, but since these drawings were inadequate for the task, the project required scanning of the entire platform and creation of a 3-D model.

The goal was to enable Shell to replace a large portion of piping, and automate the associated operational work processes. This required a comprehensive 3-D model of the platform, including the piping and the flanges, from which the geometries could be exported to various design programs to create new drawings.

The project was completed in 23 days, and hailed by Shell as “a huge success.”20 While current 3-D scanning technology proFigure 1.3.3.2-1. Shell Oil Company applied 3-D laser scanvides valuable capabilities, significant adning technology to accurately capture the as-built configuvances are required to support a broader ration of its offshore platform at Forcados, Nigeria to suprange of needs for the capital projects indusport a major renovation of the facility. try FIATECH’s recently launched 3-D Laser Scanning project is focusing directly on these needs. The goal of the project is to improve the ability to capture 3-D digital conditions of construction projects and to integrate information into life-cycle data; and to identify areas where the use of laser distance and ranging (LADAR) would reduce costs and improve returns on investment for contractors and owners. Specific capabilities to be developed include: • Rapid scene capture • Accurate 3-D surface models • Volume/area calculation • Owner/contractor derived information.

1.3.3.3 Decommissioning/Disposal For most of our nation’s history, “capital projects” were limited to relatively simple projects such as roads, bridges, and buildings – brick and mortar, iron and steel. The discovery of electricity and the invention of the internal combustion engine and the resulting explosion of technology since the turn of the 20th century have given rise to a massive national infrastructure and industrial base for power generation and distribution, manufacturing of complex chemical products, the automotive industry, the electronics industry, and the aerospace industry.

20

www.ageo.co.uk/laser_scanning/.

March 2003

42

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Until recently, little consideration was given to any kind of life-cycle concerns. The end of the Cold War brought home the implications of life-cycle issues in staggering fashion. The massive investment in production of nuclear weapons through the 1970s has left the nation with a legacy that no one could have imagined at the time those facilities were being built. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) launched an aggressive effort to attack environmental remediation (ER) and decontamination and decommissioning challenges in the 1980s, but these initiatives ran into a veritable buzz-saw of technical, legal, liability, and cost issues. Estimates for cleanup of the DOE facilities at the Hanford Site in Washington State range as high as $4 trillion, as one example. Although small-scale efforts at DOE facilities in Fernald, OH and Oak Ridge, TN have been successful, attempts at kind of large-scale response have failed convincingly. The M&O contractors and the ER industry are unwilling to accept the risks demanded by DOE, and the government cannot afford to provide the financial guarantees needed to accomplish projects where the candidate technologies are not certain to perform as desired.

The bottom line is that facilities must be designed, built, operated, and maintained based on a clear understanding of, and accommodation of, the entire life cycle. In the context of D&D), and in the words of the CPTR workshop participants, every capital project must “begin with the end in mind.”21 Today, there are two overarching challenges in this area: 1) Designing new facilities to accommodate ultimate D&D at their end of life 2) Safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively accomplishing D&D of existing facilities that are now at or near the end of their design lives.

In undertaking a D&D project, the first and biggest problem is understanding and scoping what must be dealt with. What materials can be reclaimed and recycled? What hazardous materials are involved, where are they, to what extent, and in what condition? What kinds of surprises are likely or possible given what is known about the history of the facility, through either records or anecdotal evidence? What potential exists for unintended release of hazardous and toxic substances to air and water as a facility is dismantled or demolished?

This is not an easy challenge to solve. DOE spent billions in the 1980s and ‘90s in simply assessing and characterizing ER/D&D issues at its facilities across the country. Although most industries do not have to deal with the kinds of problems associated with radioactive materials, substances such as heavy metals, asbestos, PCBs, and other hazardous materials and chemicals present challenges of their own in undertaking D&D efforts. While many technologies have been developed to support identification, characterization, and remediation of such hazards, the fact remains that cost and risk escalate dramatically when any type of toxic/hazardous material is involved.

Given this context, the workshop team identified several key issues that must be addressed in this area. As a consensus, the industry lacks: • Comprehensive and highly standardized tools and methods for assessing as-is conditions and characterizing hazards and potential problems.

• Accurate and useable business models for D&D planning that can be shared across companies and sectors, and which can be updated based on shared experience across industry, to support both execution of D&D projects and planning for D&D in the design phase.

• Tools for assessing the condition and suitability of salvageable materials.

• Testing and monitoring technology for assessment and tracking during the D&D process.

21

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, p. 95, Simon & Schuster, NY 1989.

March 2003

43

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • A comprehensive, efficient, and cost-effective supply network for handling 100% of all D&D output – not just the useful salvage/recycle materials – including provision for safe interstate transport and national facilities for processing and disposal of hazardous materials.

• The industry-wide business imperative to account for D&D up front, to include budgeting for decontamination, decommissioning, salvage, and disposal.

• Business models to support understanding of recycle/reuse options, including alternative uses.

• Technologies for separation and recycle of D&D’d materials – concrete, asphalt, metals and alloys, wood, plastics, glass – and cost-effective transformation into new and useful materials.

• Good operational models and practices for accomplishing complex D&D projects, so as to reduce hazards to workers, the public, and the environment.

1.3.4 Project Management The project management function crosscuts all activities of the capital project industry, providing coordination and communication to assure the proper execution of all activities and operations. While all companies in this industry strive to apply accepted principles of good management, and tools such as Primavera are in widespread use, there is no widely accepted “system” for managing projects. Hundreds of companies apply thousands of similar but different tools and techniques that reflect their own corporate management culture augmented by different commercial and custom-built tools, applications, systems, and methodologies.

Each company’s system is the result of trial-and-error evolution over many years, or even decades. While most large firms have well-developed systems that provide acceptable functionality for their own business needs, these systems often break down when business requirements change or multiple companies integrate teams to pursue and conduct specific joint-interest projects.

Table 1.3.4-1 provides a top-level characterization of the current state of industry regarding project management, which is discussed in further detail below.

1.3.4.1 Project Coordination & Control Project coordination and control are essentially human functions – the people in the trailer at the construction site who assure that everything that needs to be done is done; that everything required it is available when needed; and that everyone involved in the project has all the timely information they need. A problem for project coordinators is that senior managers focus first on cost and schedule compliance, because those factors determine whether the organization earns a bonus for performance or pays a penalty for nonperformance. Few benchmarks exist to baseline standards of excellence in project coordination, although most companies think they do a good job of it. What is true is that far too many projects overrun their cost and schedule targets. The bigger and more complex the project, the larger and more inevitable the problems will be.

March 2003

44

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 1.3.4-1. State Map for Project Management Sub-Element

Lagging Examples

Project Coordination & Control

• Oil refinery projects that are constantly overrunning cost and schedule targets • Management team continually “surprised” by lack of progress or missed milestones

Scope Management

• Scope is not managed but rather left entirely to operators and maintenance to determine

Quality Management

• Too often have a constant battle to produce quality results

Licensing & Regulatory

• Ad-hoc awareness of detailed requirements • “Avoidance” mentality with frequent fits and starts

Financial/ Business Management

Safety, Health & Environment

March 2003

State of Practice

State of Art/Best Practice

• Effective project info flow requires a large amount of communication & monitoring by project manager or project controls • Current communications: lots of phone calls, Faxes, emails, intranet, 2-way radio.

• Snafus identified with little to no “panic time” available.

• Mostly manual monitoring going on • Monitored info, updates / revision documents take too long to get back to the appropriate people • Usually a battle between project management and O&M to get initial scope initially and then restrict changes • Slow turnaround for change orders • Impacts of change orders may not always be reviewed by appropriate personnel • No TQM review • Everything is manual, from data input through analysis • Conflicting trade offs between cost & quality. However, designs are generally workable & final quality is not poor.

• Governing documents are read and reread • Applications for permits etc. are done one by one, manually • Lack of procedure standardization • Requires environmental departments within owner organization to keep up with changing regulations

• Disney’s time-tagged DB of projects, simulation, visualization of projects, used on new California park • Caterpillar—world-wide logistics, predictive maintenance based on communications & GPS in machinery • Multiple organizations operating from same database

• Some projects appear to be totally out of control

• Construction side of the house is formulating proposed budgets partially in the blind—not knowing source restrictions • Still some ignorance in organization regarding why projects are done. Not sufficient focus on the business case

• Choosing contractors without proven safety record

• Project safety engineer knows regulations etc. and has safety incentive programs but lacks human psychology skills – how to make people work safe.

• Safety is a top priority finally—it is under control. Also, a great deal of focus on health issues.

• Environmental issues normally handled by regulatory dept..

• SAP is well-known product, with origination and perceived strengths in financial area • Hard to discern best practitioners, since winning a contract can be due to multiple causes (lower margins, better management, etc.)

• Web-based procurement (Bechtel) • Integrated project management with scheduling and financial systems • Baxter doing excellent work re environmental issues, not only continually cutting emissions beyond the regulations but also responding to local interests

45

• Value engineering techniques, practiced by CITGO • Project Management Institute has knowledge base with good examples of best practices for all types of industry • Sohio (now BP) good at meeting all regulations in Alaska work. Very concerned about quality; didn’t consider failure or slip-ups as an option.

• • • •

Online submission and review of permits Streamlining of regulations Electronic records of compliance Satellite tracking of waste shipments

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE A big challenge of project coordination is that, with multiple organizations and parties involved, it is difficult to synchronize all the activities and communication among different functions and groups. This leads to difficulty making good decisions, especially when multiple organizations are involved with their different organizational cultures and languages, even when all parties are earnestly working for the best result. In current practice, communication is via phone calls, faxes, emails, intranet, 2-way radio, and hollering out the window. Problems are typically identified late, with little time left to solve them, which forces delays and logjams of people and materials.

Figure 1.3.4.1-2. With applications such as

Automated tools for integrated management of capital pro- Constructware, we are now seeing the first jects are emerging. Applications such as Constructware generation of true project management (Figure 1.3.4.1-2), ProjectNet, and ProjectCenter connect systems for the construction industry. participants to a centralized database of project data and information tools to improve communication and collaboration. Because the project database is continuously updated, architects, engineers, and subcontractors can immediately access current information to track progress and support real-time decisionmaking and analysis.

Project Management You Can Only Imagineer: Disney Does It Different

Walt Disney Imagineers operate under the same constraints as any design and construction company – bringing in a project at cost and on time, carefully scheduling the arrival and assembly of parts. But at Disney, a combination of high-tech tools has enabled simulation of various options and rapid production of the chosen design.

Using virtual reality (VR) techniques, a 3-D version of the California Adventure land was created and projected onto large video screens. Disney staff could “fly” around and experience the park from different perspectives to finely tune the specifications and create the optimal experience for Disney visitors.

Once the park was designed, the 3-D model was linked with the project schedule to create a 4-D visualization of project plans. As time runs by, different project phases are highlighted in different colors.

The VR simulation highlights any holes or conflicts in scheduled activities at a time when they are still easily fixed.

This rich technology environment greatly enhanced communication – with Imagineering staff, construction management, general contractors, and even via “snapshots” to subcontractors. Every participant could see his part and how and when it fit into the overall project plan.

– Villano, Matt, Building on IT, CIO Magazine, 15 June 2001; www.cio.com/archive/061501/building_sidebar_2_content.html ?printver

March 2003

46

There are many examples of large and complex projects that are well coordinated. As a leadingedge example, construction of Disney’s new California Adventure land was managed with a high-tech combination of time-tagged simulation and visualization.

Sometimes the contracting process complicates the incentive issues and makes project coordination even more difficult, especially if a contractor “lowballs” its bid with the expectation of making money on later change orders. This is a practice unlikely to change until the industry adopts a policy of competing bids for change orders. One of the major challenges of the industry is the recognition that changing out contractors after the project is underway is costly and usually leads to delays, which makes underbidding a successful, although unseemly, business practice. For this reason, organizations like to work with contractors that they can trust.

There are also technical challenges. Locally developed or proprietary project coordination and control systems may simply systematize bad practice, and certainly increase difficulty in working in complex teaming environments. The capital projects industry in general is risk-averse about new practices and technologies, and newer technologies adopted by large organizations may not be within the reach of smaller

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE suppliers. Provision of compatible technology-based systems to second- and third-tier suppliers is a major concern for many companies.

Project control requires realistic assessment of project status in real or near-real time, and the ability to integrate information from a variety of sources and systems. Whether due to lack of knowledge about technology or to the general conservatism of the industry, available technology is still not fully utilCaspian Pipeline Project ized, especially for providing real-time informaUnderscores 21st Century Chaltion. Required information is usually gathered lenges and Opportunities manually, and the time to get updates and revisions to all affected people is often excessive. ProOne of the biggest capital projects ever underject control data is always collected on large protaken, the recently completed Caspian Pipeline jects, but analysis and use of that data for progress Consortium (CPC) project cost over $2.5 billion, stretches over 900 miles, moves 550,000 barrels assessment is frequently lacking. Primavera and of oil a day, and is designed to move 1.5M barrels similar software tools have gained strong accepa day with expansions and upgrades. The pipeline tance in scheduling and progress reporting for crosses 768 roads, railways, canals, ravines, and large-scale projects, but are only as effective as the major rivers. people who use them. A promising approach to The CPC designed and built a system that could using project control data to manage project promove oil from the Tengiz field in Kazakhstan, gress and costs has been developed by Time In1000 miles from open ocean, to the sea terminal dustrial, Inc. The Time Industrial system provides in Novorossiysk, Russia. As if the terrain and gea secure, application-neutral, internet-based serography were not challenge enough, the teams vice to collect labor, equipment and material data had to deal with numerous changes in political real-time at the job site to feed the different project and legal boundaries from the project’s inception management, payroll, or accounting systems used in 1993. by all project stakeholders.

Everything about CPC is big, not just the distance

and price tag. Chevron worked with a wide range In another promising development, Carnegie Melof contractors, from archaeologists to experts lon University has developed a system concept for trained in removing unexploded munitions left a Construction Information and Management Sysfrom WWII. It includes partners representing 10 tem (CIAMS) that automates the ad-hoc reconcompanies from six countries and three governciliation of the as-built design to the design intent. ments. The project was split into five groups that This system networks the designer, construction included major contractor roles for Fluor Daniel management team, and contractors, and uses inand Siemens. Approximately 6000 workers were process survey information to provide continuspread across the 900 miles simultaneously, ously current visibility into configuration control. working at up to 50 different locations.

Since CIAMS is aware of the design and “as-is� www.chevron.com/about/chevronnow/2000/nov_dec/caspian_f eature1.shtml status of the construction site, it can generate reports to keep project management aware of construction status. In addition to traditional surveys, sensors and robots could deliver survey data directly to CIAMS. Future work is planned to prototype a deployable automated assessment sensory system to collect survey points as needed.22

In addition to the lack of good information, there is a general human reluctance to be the bearer of bad news and a common tendency to project that everything is on schedule and going great. These human frailties hinder good project control. Too many project teams are still surprised when they miss milestones or fail to make progress. Better control of cost and schedule is attainable only when real-world requirements for delay and rework are factored in.

22

Latimer, T. DeWitt IV and Ogbemi Hammond et al., Automatic Detection of Significant Variation from Designed Intent Utilizing Survey Data, Carnegie Mellon University, 2001. www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~dl4s/professional/ISARC2000/.

March 2003

47

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 1.3.4.2 Scope Management Scope management is a challenge with any type of project, and the potential cost of “scope creep” in a capital project can be huge. Several factors contribute to this issue. The completeness of the design, or lack thereof, can contribute to the proliferation of field change orders. Many companies use “value engineering” analysis techniques to set the correct scope, determine required functions, reduce undesirable functions, and in general reduce the cost-to-worth ratio of the facility. A weakness of even the best systems, where good design practice based on clear requirements and a solid business case is the norm, is that field changes tend to shortcut appropriate review processes. Expediency and “damage control” are far too often the drivers of change.

The first requirement is to recognize scope changes, since they often creep in as seemingly inconsequential modifications requested by the construction team to make the design workable, or as a request from downstream operations team to improve their processes, or as a customer request for aesthetic enhancements. Such changes may not be “improvements” when viewed in light of the overall business objectives, and small changes early in the project may have a domino effect with large impact on the ultimate cost and performance of the facility.

In current practice, there is often a struggle between project management and operations in defining the initial scope, and a mentality of restricting changes to only those deemed necessary. A key challenge is getting full agreement on scope (through excellent and unambiguous design and good communications) from all stakeholders early in the project, and the fortitude to say “no” to scope changes that don’t pass the test of good judgment.

There are deficiencies that technology can solve. There can be legitimate business reasons to pursue scope changes even if a project has achieved design freeze. For example, the market for a product may change dramatically during construction, leading to a necessity to upsize or downsize. With current technology, there is no easy way to gather sufficient information to understand and assess a proposed scope change and its financial and functional implications to the design, construction, and operations phases. However, technology certainly can enhance communication and coordination of scope/design changes. The process of turning a recognized need for a change, into a change order that is supported by the necessary engineering, staff, and materials, is not usually well coordinated. Delays and errors are common. A system is needed for scope management that includes greatly improved efficiency and control of the change process.

1.3.4.3 Quality Management Everyone has probably heard the clichés of quality: “Fast, cheap, good – pick two!” and, “Do you want that now, or do you want it right?” While there are inherent conflicts between quality and other drivers of performance, it would be unfair to say that cost and schedule concerns always force quality compromises.

It is, however, imperative that this be recognized as an opportunity to assure that good decision processes are applied to delight the customer and achieve the best overall results.

The industry needs standard definitions of quality, because such definitions currently differ in virtually every company, and certainly across different members of the industry (e.g., between A&E firms and owner/operators). The same standards are often applied differently in different projects, or within a single project. Conversely, the same nominal quality may be produced by different standards-compliant subsystems, but the customer may push for use of a certain system that increases the cost of the project. Thus, an important part of achieving quality is to get agreement on what “quality” means in this situation, and how it will be measured. There is much debate throughout the industry regarding the value of efforts toward compliance with various quality standards (to the point of diminishing returns, some think). However, there is common agreement that in current practice, designs are generally workable and the resulting final quality is not poor. Indeed, while it is tempting to dwell on the problems, it should be acknowledged that

March 2003

48

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE many (or even most) construction projects are successful partnerships between a customer and a team of suppliers all working diligently for success.

One of the biggest cost and technology issues is getting the right records in place to document quality.

Total Quality Management (TQM) and similar disciplines require significant investments, and still require manual efforts to gather data, check processes and products, and create required documents. Automated tools are needed to assist in evaluating the risks, costs, and consequences of quality failures. The migration of quality tools and technologies to lower-tier subcontractors also needs attention. The balance of the necessity for quality programs with the cost and rigor of their execution must stay in the fore, and mechanisms for “unconscious (yet documented) excellence” must be pursued.

Examples of best practices and extreme measures in quality can certainly be found in the nuclear power and petroleum industries. Rigor in construction of nuclear plants is essential for our collective well-being, but it certainly can be driven to extremes. The quality problems with the Tennessee Valley Authority power plants are well documented. In one controversial decision, many millions of dollars worth of flawless welds were cut out because the welders’ certifications had expired. On the other side of the ledger, Sohio (now BP) in Alaska had good success by adopting a culture that simply didn’t accept the idea of quality failures or slip-ups as an option.

1.3.4.4 Licensing & Regulatory Regulations are among the greatest hurdles for the capital projects industry. On large projects with long timelines, the impact is important and the delays are troublesome. On projects where quick turnaround is imperative, regulatory delays can define the difference between success and failure. The regulations come from everywhere. State, local, and federal regulations must all be complied with, and sometimes they are in conflict. Every state has different licensing requirements, and the responsiveness and turnaround times at all levels of various regulatory bodies are notoriously slow and prone to roadblocks. This is largely due to a pervasive mentality that the objective of these agencies is not to facilitate success, but to avoid risks.

Heeding the frustrating and tedious process of obtaining building permits, a San Jose-based non-profit organization called Joint Venture unified disparate building codes throughout Silicon Valley and moved the application process online. Instead of having contractors appear at city hall to submit paperwork and wait for weeks to get a response, the streamlined process delivers permits literally overnight. Additional efforts are under way by Joint Venture, including an application that would enable city planners to approve CAD-based blueprints online.23

23

Clean Harbors Uses IT to Track and Document Hazardous Materials Massachusetts-based Clean Harbors Inc., one of the contractors cleaning up areas of New York in the wake of the World Trade Center destruction and anthrax incidents, uses information technology to efficiently manage the complex paper trail needed for dealing with hazardous materials. Since waste materials from the NBC studios cleanup might be anthrax-tainted, required documentation for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation is scanned into the company’s CHOICE system for electronic storage and retrieval on demand. The CHOICE system allows some DOT documents to be filled out on-line, and provides a mechanism to get quotes for transportation of waste. The system provides passwordprotected customer access to shipping documents, plus information on hazardous materials, including an expanded section on anthrax. Movement of 650 company trucks hauling waste to a dozen disposal sites is tracked at company headquarters in real time with a satellite tracking system.

– Brewin, Bob, “Clean Harbors to use IT in tracking hazardous materials”, ComputerWorld, 8 Nov 2001, www.computerworld.com/itresources/rcstory/0,4167,STO65472_ KEY241,00.html

Villano, Matt. “Permit Hermits”, CIO Magazine, June 15, 2001. www.cio.com/archive/061501/building_sidebar_1.html.

March 2003

49

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Regulatory compliance permitting for a project is usually a manual process with voluminous stacks of paper. Procedures are not standard, so government documents are read and reread, and the dissimilar tools required by different programs are hard to deal with. Much of the approval process is human-dependent, which leads to variations in interpretations. Large organizations will have environmental departments dedicated to keeping up with the regulations (such as CERCLA, RCRA, NPDES, SARA, and host of EPA and OSHA requirements), but for smaller operations, all the licensing and regulations present an overwhelming challenge.

Tracking and knowledge-based compliance systems are emerging. For example, Sandia National Laboratory has developed a suite of knowledge-based tools that guide the user through the understanding of regulations and the permitting process. Similarly, the DOE’s Oak Ridge Operations Office is making use of environmental management systems that assure that every step of construction and dismantlement processes is executed in compliance.

1.3.4.5 Financial/Business Management As is the case with all aspects of project management, financial and business management practices across industry vary from little control to excellent decision processes and practices. For capital projects, the business management process starts early – with the appropriation of funds and selection of projects.

Some owner/operators set aside a capital budget each year, and the organizations within the company compete for the funding. This often leads to political power taking precedence over need. Other organizations establish priorities and allocate funding based on comprehensive business case studies. The most difficult part of these studies is the long lead time, which demands prediction of uncertain economic directions.

On the construction side, estimating is often more art than science, although estimating systems have made a lot of difference in the way estimates are created. For well-defined projects that closely match standard practices, good estimates and good business management practices can be put in place fairly quickly and very early in the process. However, early estimates are often not far from educated guesses with lots of contingency built in – both formally and informally.

In current practice, it is often difficult to get access to and understand even your own company’s cost basis. In many organizations that do not require strong focus on the business case, there is often ignorance as to why projects are being done. There is a disconnect between most financial management systems and the way most companies actually operate. Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems have helped reduce this disconnect, although failures in implementation far outnumber the success stories at the current stage of ERP evolution. Knowledge systems with tradeoff capability can have tremendous impact, but there are few systems that support true knowledge-based decision making for capital projects.

Use of technology to support business management is increasing, but still has a long way to go. One EPC industry leader, Bechtel Corp., has produced a number of web-based systems to upgrade its procurement operations. BPS (Bechtel Procurement System) is an intranet portal where project managers can submit labor and material bids and generate purchase orders. The system enables greater efficiency from project managers, and is expected to greatly reduce Bechtel’s $3 million annual FedEx shipping bill. Another example is Pasadena, CA-based Parsons Corp., a global engineering and construction company. Their new P-Works, a web-enabled project control system, can access scheduling and financial project information from anywhere.24 Cost tracking and control have improved greatly with the advent of computerized cost collection and earned-value management systems, but timeliness remains an issue. Far too often, managers don’t find out that they are overrun until the problem is several weeks old, when it’s too late to do anything but eat the hit or take the difference out of another area in the form of a cutback. Companies such as Time Indus-

24

Villano, Matt. “Building on IT,” CIO Magazine, 15 June 2001. www.cio.com/archive/061501/building.html.

March 2003

50

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE trial are tackling this challenge with internet-based systems that enable tracking of project labor, equipment and material costs in real time for owners, contractors and subcontractors.

Large-scale financial management presents huge opportunities for improvement if fundamental changes can be made in the way that capital projects are financed. On many long-term projects, huge sums of money are consumed by cost escalation over time, loan or bond financing costs, contingencies and guarantees, float, administrative load, and similar factors. The only organizations that benefit from this state of affairs are the financial and legal institutions involved. No “system” is going to fix the current methods.

New methods are needed. By reducing the time required to move from design to completion, by reducing design and construction costs, by reducing and capping cost risk, and by providing new avenues for selffinancing using shared investment/reward models, tremendous savings can be realized.

1.3.4.6 Safety, Health & Environment All sectors of U.S. industry have made tremendous strides over the past 20 years in improving their health, safety, and environmental (HSE) performance. This has been driven largely by increasingly stringent government regulations, by the understanding that problems in these areas invariably lead to work stoppages and costly litigation, and by the recognition that well-trained personnel executing properly planned and monitored work processes drastically reduce the potential for mishaps. HSE is now a fundamental element of engineering discipline, helping assure that capital facilities are designed from inception to address fundamental issues such as containment and handling of hazardous and toxic materials, safety margins for high-temperature/pres-sure/voltage processes and equipment, structural loading, and management of all waste streams.

Better safety systems (i.e., protective gear), increased use of modular and prefabricated components, and improved quality of tools, equipment, and materials are significantly reducing the occurrence and magnitude of failures and accidents.

50% Drop in Injuries is “Just the Beginning” A culture change is taking place at Johns Manville Corporation, the world's largest manufacturer of commercial roofing systems and a premier producer of fiberglass insulation products. "We're in the first phase of a basic change in the way we approach worker safety," said Bob Lupe, safety manager for the multinational corporation. “Our new drive to eliminate injuries began a year ago, and since then we've seen a 50 percent reduction in lost workday and restricted duty cases.”

Lupe attributes the improvements not to radical new technologies and manufacturing processes, but rather to improved communication and worker involvement.

The HSE functions in capital construction may be among the least amenable to solution by technology application – the core issues here are largely “people issues.” As one industry veteran puts it, two things cause incidents: ignorance and speed. The project HSE engineers may know all the regulations and can design a perfect facility or structure, but cannot account for the variables of the individuals who will actually do the construction. Construction is a tough business with a mindset of rugged independence and a less than complete respect for rules and regulations. These factors make it difficult to establish HSE programs that are credible with both management and the workforce and that are executed by all.

The common practice of HSE incentives can be argued in two ways. Clearly, people do respond to tangible reward for correct practice, but such incentives can actually work against the goal by causing a reluctance to report incidents. A more effective strategy is to personalize the result of good (as well as bad) HSE practice. Specific recognition to employees whose good practice directly resulted in the avoidance of an incident, or the appropriate use of an example where the failure to exercise good practice resulted in an incident, can have impact. The visibility of real commitment and concern from top management, along with willingness to spend the necessary money to communicate and motivate proper behavior and assure a healthy work environment, is the most effective tool for influencing the workforce.

Although environmental issues are generally thought of in terms of regulatory compliance concerns, a visible management commitment to establish processes and use products that are environmentally benign is much effective in influencing workforce culture than simply exhorting compliance to rules and regulations. Environmental consciousness in the workplace, modeled by the leaders of the organization, can

March 2003

51

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE have a meaningful impact on the work environment and the community outside the faculty. An example of good practice comes from Baxter International. Baxter’s manufacturing operations are not large emitters of pollutants and are well within EPA guidelines, but strive to keep improving anyway. Baxter has reduced emissions by 90% since 1990, and plans to reduce by another 30% by 2005.25

25

Goodman, Ann, “Healthy, Wealthy and Wise,” Delta Sky Magazine, October 2001, p.116.

March 2003

52

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

2.0 ONGOING INITIATIVES The capital projects industry is one of the nation’s largest and most widely dispersed sectors. The industry involves hundreds of agencies between the federal and local levels, industry consortia and professional organizations, and thousands of companies ranging from Fortune 100 corporations to single-member small businesses in the construction trades.

The federal investment for technology development that is directly related to the goals identified in the FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Roadmap is notable. According to the FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Information System, there are currently more than 900 active projects being funded by federal agencies, representing a collective investment of over $800 million. Evaluation of projects funded within the past 3 years indicates a federal investment of well over $1.8 billion.

This section presents a brief overview of major organizations that collectively provide leadership and guidance across the industry.

2.1 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST)

The FIATECH Database: A Powerful Resource for Leveraging and Aligning R&D Investments The FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Information System is a web-based information resource launched in the summer of 2001. The system integrates data about ongoing initiatives from the many federal and industrial organizations addressing industry’s technology challenges. By bringing a wealth of highly fragmented data into one system, the system enables a clear view of current R&D activities. This enables all R&D stakeholders and users to make better strategic decisions on R&D direction and investments. The initial implementation focuses on federally funded R&D. Future data will include activities from industry, best practices and other data to provide greater insights into current research that addresses the goals of the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap.

NIST provides a significant investment for technology development. Relevant to capital projects and capital facilities, the FIATECH Capital Facilities Technology Information System reports more than 240 currently funded projects valued at over $500 million for FY01 and FY02. Because many projects do not publish funding data, the actual funded value is likely much higher. This investment spans a broad range of programs from the major NIST laboratories and programs as indicated in Figure 2.1-1.

At the federal level, the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) is the most visible champion of R&D that directly supports the capital projects industry. Major project/program areas include: • Product Data Standards for Industrial Facilities - Improving System Design, Fabrication and Installation • Advanced Graphical User Interfaces for Construction Project Delivery Systems • Project Information Management System Technologies • Information Infrastructure for Building Simulations • Virtual Cybernetic Building Testbed • Advanced Construction Technology.

The Advanced Construction Technology program (Figure

March 2003

53

Figure 2.1-1. NIST currently funds more than $500 million in R&D related to Capital Projects Technology Roadmap goals.

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 3.1-2) is focused on two primary areas: Structural Performance Prediction, and Construction Integration and Automation Technology (CONSIAT), which is discussed below.

CONSIAT CONSIAT’s objective is to achieve significant cycle time and life-cycle cost reductions in the delivery of construction projects by 2004 through the integration and automation of project information and the integration of metrology data and other information from the construction site into project information management systems.

Figure 2.1-2. The first focus of the Advanced Under this program, BFRL is developing 1) Construction Technology program is on integration and information representation and exchange protoautomation of project information, and integration of cols that describe construction processes and metrology data from the construction site into project projects, 2) communication protocols that work management systems. in the distributed construction environment, 3) technical transaction protocols that support construction practices, and 4) performance metrics and recommended practices for construction measurement systems. BFRL will conduct a full-scale demonstration of a prototype FIAPP system in partnership with construction industry stakeholders by 2004.

The CONSIAT program will enable further development of new automation capabilities that will lead to significant cycle time and life-cycle cost reductions in the delivery of construction projects by achieving breakthrough, technology-intensive process changes. Such breakthrough changes – with emphasis on integration, automation, and the filling of critical information gaps – are vital to the competitiveness of facility owners and owner-operators, as well as of engineer-procure-construct (EPC) or EPC-operatemaintain (EPCOM) contractors. Specifically, this program will contribute to U.S. industry’s ability to: compress project schedule through concurrent engineering and reduce design changes; enable better control of project schedule and cost; improve supply chain management, including the tracking of materials, equipment, and labor; rapidly detect and rectify differences between as-designed and as-built construction; and capture the physical and functional as-built status of a project for later use in facility commissioning, operation, maintenance, and renovation.

CONSIAT is contributing to breakthrough process changes in two ways. First, it enables the integration and automation of project information within the context of the entire life cycle and enterprise-wide resource planning systems. Second, it brings metrology data and other information from the construction site into the project information management system, thus bridging the information gap between engineering, material management, on-site work processes, and project control systems.

NIST will conduct a full-scale demonstration of a prototype FIAPP system in partnership with construction industry stakeholders by 2004. In addition, NIST is providing a FIAPP testbed – configured from an end-user viewpoint – to develop, evaluate, and verify an interoperable system of plug-and-play hardware and software components and to demonstrate proof-of-feasibility of prototype FIAPP systems and technologies.

The first-generation prototype FIAPP system will demonstrate feasibility, focusing on innovative process changes based on integration of robust/proven technologies. The second-generation system will integrate advanced functional capabilities, building on new measurement systems and innovative uses of information technology.

March 2003

54

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE In FY 2001, CONSIAT focused on subsystem information delivery; the earthwork, foundation, and structural (steel) delivery process; and the pipe spools and piping systems delivery process. Major results of CONSIAT research include: 1) Development of a prototype graphical user interface that demonstrates 3D web-based technologies for accessing and viewing construction project information using virtual reality modeling language (VRML).

2) Extension of the static data model in the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., (AISC) CIMSteel Integration Standard (CIS/2) to incorporate temporal data about the location and orientation of structural steelwork components and implementation of the model in a first-generation project management system database.

3) Field testing of an advanced interoperability protocol – LiveView – for the construction industry.

Live View will ultimately permit "plug-and-play" communication capability between site sensors, wireless communications equipment, and third-party software to provide project management information using live data from the construction site. It will also provide and the downlink information necessary to bring automation to the construction site.

4) Field testing of a customized interactive web interface operating on a wireless, wearable field computer that can track components, machinery, and other mobile assets on a construction site in real-time by seamlessly integrating a laser-based real-time spatial positioning system, a bar code and radio frequency identification (RFID) scanning system, and a wireless data link.

5) Establishment of a collaborative project with the PlantSTEP Consortium, the U.S. Navy, and the shipbuilding industry to develop the systems design, fabrication, and extension of ISO 10303227.

6) Field testing of new techniques for using ultra-fast laser ranging (LIDAR) and 3D analysis technologies to automatically and non-intrusively scan an active construction site and to extract useful information concerning excavation status for project management.

7) Completion of a collaborative study with the Construction Industry Institute (Section 3.3) and publication of a report that documents the economic benefits and costs of FIATECH technologies.

Virtual Cybernetic Building Testbed (VCBT) The objective of this project is to develop a real-time, distributed cybernetic building emulator. The VCBT integrates a variety of simulation models with commercial and prototype controllers that create a hybrid software/hardware environment for testing various integrated control system components for cybernetic buildings. The VCBT will also simulate fault conditions for use in testing fault detection and diagnostics technology.

The dynamic interactions of integrated control systems in a cybernetic building are not well understood.

With increasing pressure to integrate more building control systems and services, there is a desperate need to test and evaluate the complex interactions of such systems under normal and adverse (i.e., emergency) operating situations. Control manufacturers and service providers need help in the development, testing, and certification of new products. These tasks cannot be accomplished using real buildings because of the complexity of the systems involved and the need to maintain a comfortable and safe building environment for occupants at all times.

The VCBT uses a distributed simulation environment and a commercial data acquisition system to link the simulations to real building control hardware. The simulation portion is made up from separate HVAC, fire model, and network analysis simulation tools previously developed by NIST.

March 2003

55

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE A sophisticated graphical front-end based on VRML provides the user interface to the test bed. The user interface will eventually allow researchers and service providers to use the VCBT, either onsite or remotely, to study system interactions, evaluate control algorithms, and test the performance of new services. Fault models will be developed for common heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system components and included in the VCBT to provide a controlled and reproducible environment for testing and evaluating fault detection and diagnostic tools.

The VCBT will serve as a tool for testing building product information modeling concepts being developed by the International Alliance for Interoperability (Section 2.6) and others. The models will be implemented in the VCBT and used to drive the simulations needed for product testing and to investigate the automation of the configuration and commissioning of cybernetic building system products.

NIST Standards Activities PlantSTEP is an industrial consortium of companies that own, design, build, operate and maintain process plants and companies that supply equipment, materials and information technology for the process and construction industries. The primary focus of PlantSTEP is to develop and support implementation of data exchange standards based on ISO 10303 – STEP, the Standard for the Exchange of Product Data.

Process Industries Executive for Achieving Business Advantage Using Standards for Data Exchange (PIEBASE) is the global umbrella for process industry consortia; member companies are active in the development of STEP and other standards for industrial data for the process industries.

High Performance Building Materials The first focus of the High Performance Building Materials program is to enable the reliable application of high-performance concrete (HPC) in buildings and the civil infrastructure. HPC refers to any concrete that has desirable performance attributes that cannot be met routinely with traditional materials and traditional processing. Examples are more durable, stronger, tougher, and more-easily-placed concrete. Barriers to full use of HPC include inadequate understanding of performance attributes, a lack of test methods for evaluating performance, a lack of guidelines for practice, and inefficient dissemination of knowledge to potential users.

BFRL is developing methods for (1) determining rheological properties and curing conditions, (2) characterizing composition and uniformity, (3) simulating transport and cement hydration chemistry and molecular ion-solid interactions, (4) predicting the effects of fire on high-strength HPC, (5) gaining acceptance of the modified compression field theory for treatment of shear in HPC, and (6) calculating its lifecycle cost. The results of all program elements are being incorporated into a prototype interoperable distributed computer-integrated knowledge system, HYPERCON. The second focus of the High Performance Building Materials program is to develop methods for measuring and predicting the service life of polymeric building materials. The development of accurate and accelerated methods for predicting the service life is an enabling technology to significantly reduce the time to market for new products. Among other activities, BFRL is (1) developing a model to predict the depletion rate of ultraviolet stabilizers commonly used to protect polymers and coatings, (2) developing a model to predict the instantaneous bulk and surface moisture content of polymers and coatings, and (3) developing standard methods for evaluating the mechanical properties of polymers under complex states of stress such as high loads over a small contact area.

2.2 CIVIL ENGINEERING RESEARCH FOUNDATION The Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) serves as an industry-guided facilitator, coordinator, and integrator for the design and construction industry and the civil engineering profession. CERF’s mission is to enhance the quality, timeliness, and effective delivery of essential research and innovation into practice, while assuring coordinated efforts among institutions with similar agendas.

March 2003

56

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE CERF is a major participant in the national High-Performance CONstruction MATerials and Systems (CONMAT) program, a 10-year, $2 billion national program of technological research, development, and deployment. Its goal is to accelerate the commercialization of innovative materials and systems as rapidly as possible. CONMAT is the culmination of an intense industry-led effort that began in 1993, involving detailed planning studies by a dozen different material supplier groups. Specific CONMAT technology areas and associated goals are outlined in Table 2.2-1.

Table 2.2-1.

CERF CONMAT Technology Thrusts Area Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites

Smart Material Devices & Monitoring Systems

Steel

Wood Concrete

Masonry

Stainless Materials Cross Cutting Materials

Projects • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Development and Demonstration of FRP Composite Dowel Rods for Concrete Highway Construction Repair or Upgrade of Deteriorated Concrete Structures Using FRP Composites Development and Demonstration of FRP Composite Reinforcing Bars Development and Demonstration of FRP Composite Tendons for Prestressed Concrete FRP Composites in Hybrid Combination with Iron and Steel FRP Composites in Hybrid Combination with Aluminum FRP Composites in Hybrid Combination with Structural Timber (Wood) Bridge Monitoring by Passive Smart Sensors Structural Health Monitoring of Various Bridge Designs and Usage Problems Virginia Rt. 58 Bridge Deck and Monitoring Project Structural Monitoring of Composite Wraps Applied to Concrete Columns and Piers in Seismic Areas Seismic Monitoring Systems for Civil Structures Establishing Ductile Fracture Models High-Performance Steel for Infrastructure Applications with Emphasis on Bridges High Performance Steels in Bridges Fiber Reinforced Glue-Laminated Timber Performance Enhancing Treatments for Wood Fracture Processes Examined with Computer Vision Extruded Fiber Reinforced-Cement Pressure Pipes Shrinkage Reducing Admixtures Low Cost Extruded Structural Members 2D-ESPI Technology High Strength Fiber-Reinforced Composites Brick/Mortar Compatibility Limit States Design Research Shear Resistance of Prestressed Masonry Brick Freeze-Thaw Durability Development of Stainless Steel Rebars Use of Stainless Steel in Joints Use of Stainless Steel as Roofing Material Life-Cycle Information Systems for Building and Facilities

2.3 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE The mission of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) is to improve the safety, quality, schedule, and cost effectiveness of the capital investment process through research and implementation support for the purpose of providing a competitive advantage to its members in the global marketplace. The CII research program is wide ranging, with the establishment of over 85 research teams working in collaboration with over 30 research universities since 1985. The research is classified into six target areas: • New Technology Adoption

March 2003

57

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Business Relationships • People • Globalization • Integration with Business Objective • Information Transfer.

The CII’s Emerging Construction Technologies web site (http://www.new-technologies.org/ECT/) maintains comprehensive information and links to more than 200 new and emerging products in five major area (Table 2.3-1).

Table 2.3-1.

CII Emerging Construction Technologies Coverage Area Civil

Mechanical Technologies

Internet-Based

Electrical

Other

Technologies • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Building Systems Composite Materials and Technologies Concrete Technologies Construction Equipment and Methods Demolition Foundations Air Distribution Basic Mechanical Materials Building Services, Process, and Fire Protection Piping • Conveying Systems • Heat Generation Equipment • HVAC Equipment and Controls • • • • • • • • • • • •

Information Services Network Technology & Equipment Web-based Learning Systems Electrical Materials and Methods Electrical Power Lighting Low-voltage Distribution Communication Engineering Software Equipment Automation Non-Destructive Evaluation Remediation

Masonry Technologies Roofing Technologies Steel Technologies Actuated or Pneumatic Tools Structural Connection Technologies Trenchless Technologies Industrial Equipment Internal Pipeline Assessment Technologies Pipe Technologies Plumbing Fixtures and Equipment Refrigeration Equipment Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing Welding Technologies Web-based Project Management Web-enabled Engineering Software

• Sound and Video • Transmission and Distribution • Wiring Methods • • • •

Robotics Site Positioning and Metrology Soil Remediation Water/Waste Systems

The CII also serves as an industry focal point for Best Practices, offering descriptions, tools, and supporting information on the subjects of: • • • • •

Baselined Best Practices • • • • • •

Pre-Project Planning Alignment Constructability Design Effectiveness Materials Management Team Building

March 2003

58

Partnering Quality Management Change Management Disputes Resolution Zero Accidents Techniques

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • • • • • •

Proposed Best Practices • • • • • •

Early Estimating Planning for Startup Design for Maintainability Employee Incentives Management of Education and Training Organizational Work Structure

Leader Selection Implementation of Products Lessons Learned Managing Workers' Compensation Environmental Remediation Management Design for Safety.

2.4 FEDERAL FACILITIES COUNCIL The Federal Facilities Council (FFC) is a cooperative association of 21 federal agencies with interests and responsibilities related to facility design, acquisition, management, maintenance, and evaluation. The FFC operates under the auspices of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment (BICE) of the National Research Council, the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

The FFC's mission is to identify and advance technologies, processes, and facilities management practices that improve the performance of facilities over their entire life cycle, from planning to disposal. To achieve its mission, the FFC: • Develops and disseminates facilities-related information through networking, conferences, workshops, and studies • Provides a forum to identify government-wide issues regarding facility planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and management • Convenes standing committee meetings to promote networking and information sharing among sponsor agencies.

Three of the ongoing and planned FFC studies are described below.

Compendium of Best Practices for Facility Operations and Maintenance This activity will focus on identifying best practices for facility operations and maintenance that should be standard practice for facility organizations in the 21st Century. Issues to be addressed range from reliability-centered maintenance to sustainable design to indoor air quality. A major objective is to describe the practices in order to increase the understanding of the importance of these practices among decision makers, building users, and others.

Performance Based Condition Assessments The objective of this study is to develop a conceptual, hierarchical framework for assessing the condition/functionality of facilities in relation to use and mission support. The framework will identify general categories of use (administrative, health facility, research) and relate these to factors affecting functionality such as energy provision/usage, indoor air quality, user comfort/satisfaction, infrastructure for information technology support, maintenance expenses, and environmental standards. Related topics to be addressed include baselines for performance measurement; identifying the root causes for unsatisfactory performance; potential solutions to improving performance; available tools and resources; core competencies needed to assess facilities using this framework; and the costs/benefits of assessing buildings based on functionality.

Best Practices for Developing Scopes of Work for Design Services This study will compile information about how federal agencies and private sector facilities organizations are developing project scopes of work and identify best practices that could be used by federal agencies.

March 2003

59

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Issues to be addressed include tying scopes of work to different types of project delivery systems; differences in scopes of work for new construction vs. rehabilitation; the core competencies and organizational support needed to develop effective scopes of work; how technology can be used to support this process; and performance measures for determining the effectiveness of the advance planning process.

2.5 NSTC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Subcommittee on Construction and Building (C&B) was organized in 1994 to coordinate and focus the work of 14 federal agencies in enhancing the competitiveness of U S. industry, public and worker safety, and environmental quality through R&D. The subcommittee works in cooperation with U.S. industry, labor, and academia to improve the life-cycle performance, sustainability, efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of constructed facilities.

At the start, C&B, in consultation with industry, formulated national construction goals to guide federal agencies and industry in the focus and coordination of the $500 million annual federal R&D relevant to the industries of construction through programs such as CONMAT, which is discussed in Section 3.2.

Other C&B initiatives of note include a project to streamline the building regulatory process and technical and financial support to the National Evaluation Service – the Building Innovation Center, the Highway Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC), the Environmental Technology Management Center (EvTec), and the Civil Engineering Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (CEITEC).

2.6 INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR INTEROPERABILITY The International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) is an action-oriented, not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its mission is to define, publish and promote specifications for Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) as a basis for project information sharing in architecture, engineering, construction, and facilities management across all disciplines and technical applications.

IFCs define a single object model (i.e., object-oriented data model) of buildings shared by all IFCcompliant applications. IFC project models define individual buildings for which compliant applications can exchange information accurately and error-free. IAI’s IFC Extension development and other projects address: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

HVAC Performance Validation HVAC Modeling and Simulation Code Compliance Support Engineering Maintenance Costs, Accounts and Financial Elements in FM Material Selection, Specification and Procurement Steel Frame Structures Reinforced Concrete Structures Precast Concrete Construction Structural Analysis Model and Steel Constructions IFC drafting extension Business Transaction Standards High-Level Classification Framework.

2.7 DESIGN-BUILD INSTITUTE OF AMERICA The Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) was founded in 1993 to support the emergence of designbuild project delivery as a significant force in the design and construction field, recombining the vital

March 2003

60

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE roles of designer and constructor. DBIA's purpose is to improve the level of practice on a continuing basis, to disseminate educational information, and to furnish advice and support to facility owners and users.

One of DBIA's most important missions is to promote the widespread and successful utilization of the design-build project delivery method throughout industry and government. DBIA implements this goal through: • Development and dissemination of standard procedures for design-build procurement, including model RFP formats, criteria packages, and best practices documents • Active promotion of design-build by participating in industry and client seminars, educational programs and a wide range of public forums • Continuing education programs to increase the level of knowledge and expertise of design-build practitioners • Working with key private corporations and government agencies to institute consistent and workable procurement practices • Adapting state procurement and licensing laws to facilitate design-build delivery • Providing services to members, including a variety of informational materials and specific assistance in influencing design-build use.

2.8 THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) Through a broad range of science and engineering programs, NSF supports a variety of technology developments directly related to the goals and requirements of the roadmapping initiative. According to the FIATECH Capital Facilities Technology Information System, NSF is currently funding more than 672 projects valued at over $265 million (Figure 2.8-1). This total does not include recently announced awards for post-disaster assessments of the World Trade Center; these grants will have direct value to the structural engineering and damage assessment technology areas of the roadmapping initiative.

NSF is responsive to engineering and science requirements from nanotechnology to major structures. A new $1 million program has recently been announced for multidisciplinary research into critical infrastructure and related systems; the focus of this program is on technologies for mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery from disasters and other extreme events.

March 2003

61

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Figure 2.8-1. NSF is currently funding more than 672 projects valued at over $265 million that support technology developments directly related to the goals of the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap.

Three NSF Engineering Directorate programs provide substantial support for capital facilities projects.

The NSF Engineering Education Centers (EECs) focus on integrating cross-disciplinary partnerships that support technological and educational innovation. EECs developing technologies specifically relevant to the roadmapping initiative include the following Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) activities: • Center for Engineering Logistics & Distribution – research on integrated solutions to logistics problems through modeling, analysis, and intelligent-systems technologies.

• ERC for Reconfigurable Machining Systems and ERC for Intelligent Maintenance Systems – development of web-based informatics to enable remote monitoring and assessment of production machinery in internet-augmented reconfigurable manufacturing environments.

• ERC for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems – technologies for design, fabrication, construction, and in-service monitoring of structures. Major efforts are focused on design of connections for automated construction, creation of knowledge-based systems for computer integration of construction processes, applicability and efficacy of novel structural materials for initial construction and for structural rehabilitation, and sensing and instrumentation for in-service monitoring of structure condition and performance.

• ERC for Net Shape Manufacturing – focuses on creation of an integrated design system offering a choice of materials, metals or plastics, and manufacturing processes in the design and production of net-shape parts.

• Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for the Built Environment – dedicated to industries and professions that design and construct buildings, manufacture building components, and operate and maintain buildings. Its objective is to improve the performance of buildings by enhancing their indoor environmental quality, and by improving energy efficiency.

• NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Center in Quality and Reliability Engineering – focuses on research that addresses a variety of topics including product improvements, design for quality, reliability prediction, equipment and process characterization, and multivariate process monitoring and control.

The NSF Civil and Mechanical Systems division focuses on research related to infrastructure construction and management. This division also funds research on geotechnology, structures, dynamics and control, mechanics, materials, and sensing for civil and mechanical systems. Technologies that will lead to the reduction of risks induced by earthquakes and other natural and technological hazards are also supported.

The division is comprised of five specific program, all multi-disciplinary in focus: • Dynamic System Modeling, Sensing, and Control • Geotechnical and Geohazards Systems • Infrastructure and Information Systems • Solid Mechanics and Materials Engineering • Structural Systems and Engineering.

The Design, Manufacture and Industrial Innovation division supports fundamental research in addition to crosscutting, multidisciplinary programs that support small business and organization innovation and academic collaboration through industrial innovation programs including Small Business Innovation Re-

March 2003

62

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE search (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR). Other key programs aligned to the technology development goals of the capital projects roadmap include: • Engineering Design • Operations Research • Manufacturing Enterprise Systems • Service Enterprise Engineering • Materials Processing and Manufacturing.

2.9 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The Department of Energy (DOE) strongly supports energy conservation, efficiency, and resource preservation through a number of laboratories, programs and user facilities including Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the Applied Materials Processing Research Center, the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, and the Physiochemical Properties Measurement Laboratory.

DOE initiatives such as the Building Technology program and the Industrial Materials for the Future program have been instrumental in identifying related research. In a series of technology roadmaps and associated funded programs, many projects are in direct alignment to the FIATECH roadmapping initiative.

DOE is currently funding more than 120 projects investing over $800 million that relate to FIATECH roadmap goals.

2.10 CURRENT GAP ANALYSIS OF FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS R&D projects captured in the FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Information System are analyzed by subject-matter experts who identify the roadmap goals and requirements that the projects address. Because of the multidisciplinary focus of many projects, one project is often associated to more than one element of the roadmap. Analysis of these associations provides a unique opportunity to evaluate how current federally funded research addresses the technology requirements identified in the roadmap. This insight is very helpful to organizations who understand their own organization’s investments and needs, but may not be aware of the collective investment being made across agencies.

The Top 10 Goals table below (Table 2.10-1) is based on analysis of projects currently available through the FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Information System represent roadmap areas where the highest level of federally funded R&D activities are found. The Gap Analysis also offers another view of the current federally funded investment. The Bottom 10 Goals table (Table 2.10-2) identifies those areas where little investment is being made in direct support of a goal – and therefore the likelihood of achieving the goal is at risk.

Table 2.10-1.

Top Ten Roadmap Goals Supported by Current Federal R&D Projects No. of Cites 427 312 275 270 267 265

March 2003

FIATECH Roadmap Goal Enhanced Materials & Components Project Management Knowledge System Integrated Communication Between Systems Integrated Communication Between Systems Improved Materials Engineering Universal Data Availability

63

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 245 222 185 176

Automated, Rapid-Erecting Facilities Real-Time Measurable Facility Condition Assessment Integrated & Optimized Global Supply Network Enablers for Automated Design

Table 2.10-2.

Bottom Ten Roadmap Goals Supported by Current Federal R&D Projects No. of Cites 2 4 5 8 10 11 15 15 15 16

March 2003

FIATECH Roadmap Goal Automated Real-Time Sampling & Compliance Reporting Automated Startup Support Real-Time O&M Information Exchange with Supply/Demand Network Integrated Stakeholder Business Systems Autonomous Design & Construction Capability Streamlined, Knowledge-Driven Approval Processes Intelligent Job Site Radically Advanced Construction Concepts Global Project Cost Models Distributed Change Management

64

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX A “WHAT IF?” John Voeller is a respected visionary and frequent speaker on technology and the future of the construction industry.26 In a presentation at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Northwest Construction Consumer Council, he outlined his own vision of the future for the industry: “What if…is always a fascinating question. It is particularly so when the current circumstances of the subject area are seen as having dysfunctional aspects or compromises that prevent it from being much better. In this brief article, we visit a few of the areas that might be done differently if we had a chance to start over in building a construction industry. Some of these are done in existing firms while others have been discussed by consortia such as CII. However, I believe several have not been widely considered and it is doubtful that all have been viewed together.

Life Cycle View – Owners and constructors develop a total life cycle value proposition for each project based on industry templates and then examine where each contributor brings added value regards of when they are participating actively in the effort.

Production – Construction based on manufacturing principles and automation perspective with value pricing, not man-hour concentration. Manufacturing has redesigned itself in the past decade and much can be learned from what they have done, even at the small contractor scale. A person heavily involved in that effort is now running FIATECH and could be valuable in moving this forward.

New Labor Practices – An end to approaches that foster a focus on man-hours with all its tendencies to elongate schedule and perpetuate inefficiency. This is tightly coupled to the first two efforts.

Virtual Halls – Every construction worker in the country should have a web page on a national resource site with them having control over which groups have access to their personal information. Experience, skills, certifications, preferences and references would all be available.

Processes – Fully documented with a national best practice repository that can be used by owners to build the requirement basis for their needs. A national repository of tools and templates would be a powerful motivator and the added opportunity for training in this discipline via the web would enhance the opportunity.

WBS and Cost Codes – Build a national template for five major facility sectors using a national WBS and cost code view and get companies to agree that these will be used with a minimum of specialized additions which will be clearly identified. Those with a stake in this include insurance, bonding, banking and owner groups.

Standards – Many current construction and material standards are based on inertia in the industry, not on an aggressive examination of what is possible and what could be better. Too much emphasis of standards bodies is on sustaining the revenue of selling and controlling this information and not on making the industry better. A national initiative to look at the alternatives to major standards should be launched with complete objectivity about alternatives.

Construction Tools – The use of physical tracking systems to eliminate loss would encourage constructors to equip their people with the very best and encourage innovation in new specialty

26

John Voeller is Vice President & Chief Knowledge Officer, Black & Veatch.

March 2003

65

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE tools. A national specialty tools tracking database would be especially useful in responding to major emergencies.

Software Tools – Off-the-shelf tools cannot be a source of competitive advantage as others can obtain – so settle on small subset to make sure vendors stay healthy and information is retrievable throughout facility life cycle. This was done in the Japanese chemical industry and the results were stark.

Handling Tools – We currently handle many large and heavy things in construction in ways that have proven workable, but we have seen little effort to truly improve this area. Much of this comes from adherence to standards built without regard to consequences in handling and assembly. For example, still having an ironworker in a sling trying to wrestle a bolted connection with a bull wrench is archaic. Using a robotic combined lifting clamp with a walking alignment punch and Huck fastener installer would seem possible but lack of such tools is result of no R&D by stakeholders.

Litigation – Develop a national view to construction claims handling. This would include highly standard ways of developing and reporting claims so that a production view to handling could be developed to catch them earlier, handle them better and learn from them more easily.

Schedule and Estimates – Owners lose millions on delays in time to revenue because of deficiencies in these areas. A key aspect of these is that doing them well requires a strong historical database of past efforts from which to build the next effort. Rather than giving this away, we should imagine how we could post project profiles and associated schedules and estimates with all associated assumptions in a national repository to which others could subscribe. It would be anonymous, but could improve the quality of all efforts large and small over time.

Coordination – A national view to balancing the scare resources of construction personnel would seem appropriate and getting and keeping such people becomes harder.

Safety – We tend to look at safety as a reaction to the many assumptions we make about how construction currently must work. What have we done to stand back and question every accepted practice in the context of safety with all options open to change?

Learning – National lessons learned repository with immunity from discoverability. We as an industry can learn a great deal from each other, but this is badly inhibited by the misuse of lessons learned by others against those trying to communicate and improve.

Alerts – A national alerts posting system should be developed so that any concerns about equipment, methods, materials or participants could be posted in a controlled manner for all industry to use to improve their efforts and avoid unnecessary losses of many kinds.

These are all very brief discussions about very complex topics and they only scratch the surface.

However, there appears to be enough substance in just these few to warrant further discussion and examination. I am ready to work with others starting today to move any of these forward.”

March 2003

66

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX B ASCE REPORT CARD AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS U.S. CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in March released its 2001 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, in which the nation received a cumulative grade of "D+" as discussed in Section 2.1 of this document. The ASCE report provides a more in-depth assessment of each of the 12 infrastructure areas on its Web site at http://www.asce.org/reportcard/. In this appendix we provide ASCE’s summary-level assessment of each area and include specific policy recommendations set forth by the association (Figure B-1). Over-arching recommendations include: • Removal of the Infrastructure Trust Funds (Highway, Aviation, Harbor Maintenance Trust and Inland Waterway) from the unified federal budget.

• Increased funding for long-term fundamental highway research efforts at the national level.

• Establish a federal, multi-year capital budget for public works infrastructure construction and rehabilitation similar to those used by state and local governments.

• Encourage the use of life-cycle cost analysis principles to evaluate the total costs of projects.

• Procure engineering design services on the basis of qualifications.

March 2003

67

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

FIGURE B-1. ASCE REPORT CARD AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2001 2001 Grade

1998 Grade

Comments

Policy Recommendations

Roads

D+

D-

• Full funding for Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) at approved levels and inclusion of revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) funds using the already determined funding formula for states.

• Reauthorize TEA-21 in 2002.

• Support for environmental streamlining of highway projects.

Bridges

C

C-

Transit

C-

C

Aviation

D

C-

One-third of the nation's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, costing American drivers an estimated $5.8 billion a year. Road conditions contribute to as many as 13,800 highway fatalities annually. Twenty-seven percent of America's urban freeways - which account for 61% of all miles driven - are congested.

As of 1998, 29% of the nation's bridges were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, an improvement from 31% in 1996. It is estimated that it will cost $10.6 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies.

Transit ridership has increased 15% since 1995 - faster than airline or highway transportation. Capital spending must increase 41% just to maintain the system in its present condition.

Airport capacity has increased only 1% in the past 10 years, while air traffic has increased 37%. Airport congestion delayed nearly 50,000 flights in 1 month alone last year. It also jeopardizes safety - there were 429 runway incursions ("near misses") reported in 2000, up 25% from 1999.

Schools

D-

F

Category

Due to aging or outdated facilities or severe overcrowding, 75% of our nation's school buildings are inadequate to meet the needs of school children. Since 1998, the total need has increased from $112 billion to $127 billion.

• Fully support the intermodal (including transit) vision of TEA-21.

• Fully fund TEA-21 at the authorized level.

• Full funding for the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) at the authorized level of $40 billion.

• Permit increases in Passenger Facilities Charges (PFC) above the current $4.50.

• Streamline the environmental permitting process by running federal and state environmental impact assessments simultaneously to speed new runway construction.

• Modernize the Air Traffic Control System.

• Expand federal tax credits to support increased use of school construction bonds.

• Continue and increase Federal grants for high-poverty, high-need school districts.

• Consider direct Federal funding for school construction.

• Encourage school districts to explore alternative financing, including lease financing, and financing/ownership/use arrangements to facilitate construction.

• Encourage school districts to adopt regular, comprehensive construction and maintenance programs.

• Increase emphasis on research and development for design and construction to meet the rapidly changing teaching environment.

• Establish a federal, multi-year capital budget for public works infrastructure construction and rehabilitation, similar to those used by state and local governments.

• Encourage the use of life-cycle cost analysis principles to evaluate the total costs of projects.

March 2003

68

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 2001 Grade

1998 Grade

Comments

Policy Recommendations

Drinking Water

D

D

Wastewater

D

D+

The nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of $11 billion to replace facilities that are nearing the end of their useful life and to comply with federal water regulations. Non-point source pollution remains the most significant threat to water quality.

The nation's 16,000 wastewater systems face enormous needs. Some sewer systems are 100 years old. Currently, there is a $12 billion annual shortfall in funding for this category, but federal funding has remained flat for a decade. Over one-third of U.S. surface waters do not meet water quality standards.

Dams

D

C-

There are more than 2,100 unsafe dams in the U.S. There were 61 reported dam failures in the past 2 years. The number of "high-hazard potential dams" - those whose failure would cause loss of life - increased from 9,281 in 1998 to 9,921 in 2001.

Solid Waste

C+

C-

The amount of solid waste sent to landfills has declined 13% since 1990, while the amount of waste recovered through recycling has nearly doubled. Most states have 10 years' worth of landfill capacity and waste-to-energy plants now manage 17% of the nation's trash.

Hazardous Waste

D+

D-

Regulation and enforcement have largely halted the contamination of new sites. Aided by the best cleanup technology in the world, the rate of Superfund cleanup has quickened - though not enough to keep pace with the number of new sites listed as the backlog of potential sites is assessed.

• Funding of $5 billion annually over five years under the current State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program in the Safe • Drinking Water Act. Congressional appropriations of $6 billion annually over five years for immediate wastewater infrastructure repairs and system upgrades under the Clean Water Act. • Create a water trust fund to finance the national shortfall in funding for water and wastewater infrastructure. These trust funds should not be diverted for non-water purposes.

• Federal appropriations from general treasury funds and issuance of revenue bonds and tax exempt financing at the state and local levels, as well as public-private partnerships, state infrastructure banks and other innovative financing mechanisms.

• Establish a comprehensive and fully funded dam safety program in all 50 states, especially Alabama and Delaware, the only states without authorized dam-safety programs.

• Create federal and state revolving loan funds to assist public and private dam owners in rehabilitating their dams.

• Full funding and expansion of the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act. • Development of a comprehensive, Internet-based information resources system to support the maintenance and improvement of dam safety in the U.S. • Reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program Act. • Emphasis should be given to integrated management of municipal solid waste. Continued development of improved landfill design and operating technology is paramount.

• Increase federal funding of research into waste-to-energy programs.

• The problem of over consumption should be addressed, with the goal of reducing the production and consumption of unnecessary goods, packaging and throwaways. Toxic materials used in products and packaging and produced as byproducts in production processes should be minimized.

• Enact a “brownfields” cleanup bill in the 107th Congress.

• Reauthorize CERCLA. Any reauthorization should include amendments that will: – Eliminate overlapping federal and state responsibilities – Relieve private parties from liability for actions that may have been legal at the time of occurrence – Promote the use of innovative technology and presumptive remedies – Provide consistent clean up criteria that take into account future uses of sites – Provide relief for engineers and contractors from unfair liability faced when working in good faith to restore Superfund sites; and, allow engineers to exercise their professional judgment

Category

March 2003

69

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Category

2001 Grade

1998 Grade

Comments

Policy Recommendations

Navigable Waterways

D+

NA*

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a backlog of $38 billion in authorized projects. On the inland waterways system, 44% of all the lock chambers have already exceeded their 50-year design lives. Key deep-draft channels are inadequate for the mega-container ships, which are the world standard for international trade. Transportation demand on waterways is expected to double by 2020, and serious performance problems are likely.

Energy

D+

NA*

Since 1990, actual capacity has increased only about 7,000 MW per year, an annual shortfall of 30%. More than 10,000 MW of capacity must be added each year until 2008 to keep up with the 1.8% annual demand growth. The U.S. energy transmission infrastructure relies on older technology, raising questions of long-term reliability.

• A program of improvement and maintenance of ports, harbors and waterways is essential to the economic and environmental well being of the nation.

• Remove the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland Waterway Infrastructure Trust Fund from the unified federal budget.

• Increased funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to relieve the $38 billion project backlog.

• Fund programs to mitigate the effects of natural disasters such as floods.

• Support for both structural and non-structural floodplain management options, and encouraging the government to consider the value of each component in devising and funding flood mitigation programs.

• Support increased funding for FEMA's National Floodplain Mapping program.

• Implementation of a rational energy policy for the United States.

• Increased federal funding for transmission reliability research.

• Development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain (ANWAR) in an environmentally responsible manner.

• Continued industry and federal funding for research and development of the Advanced Hydro Turbine.

*Not covered in prior year

March 2003

70

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX C FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING, FY1999 DESCRIPTION BY CATEGORY27 Building Design Improvements In FY99, roughly $5 million was invested in efforts to improve building design. This included R&D on energy efficient design, sustainable and green design, affordable housing, and improved building rehabilitation/renovation. It also contained software development efforts aimed at helping architects and others design better buildings.

Building Process Improvements & Automation Roughly $4 million was invested in improving and automating the building process. This category included R&D related to innovative construction approaches, partial and complete automation of construction and materials handling, simulation of construction operations, new collaborative work methods, new project management and delivery systems, as well as how to use information technologies on the job site and to improve regulatory enforcement.

Building Product Improvement Approximately $23 million was invested in building product improvement. Roughly half of this was focused on window-related research with the rest distributed among adhesives, alternatives to stick framing, improved foundations, insulation, paint, and roofing.

Concrete, Cement, Pavement, and Asphalt More than $15 million was invested in areas related to concrete, cement, pavement, and asphalt. Most of the R&D focused on transportation related applications with other efforts addressing general analysis techniques, cement/wood composites, concrete composites, corrosion, fiber-reinforced polymer concrete, and non-destructive evaluation.

Energy Efficiency Almost $58 million was invested in R&D on energy efficiency. Of this total, slightly more than half was focused on general analytical, technical, and program support. These general work areas included building energy systems, building codes and standards, existing buildings, heat and moisture modeling, and weatherization. In addition, roughly one-third was focused on HVAC, appliances, and motors. Finally, approximately 10 percent was invested in lighting. Just over $135 million was invested in energy supply.

More than $100 million of this was invested in renewable energy sources, including $90 million for photovoltaics, roughly $8 million for general solar and solar thermal technologies, and more than $8 million for geothermal technologies. On the nonrenewable side, roughly $28 million was invested in fossil fueled generation sources (primarily fuel cells at $8 million), energy storage technologies ($3 million), superconductivity ($11 million), and transmission and distribution technologies ($4 million).

27

Hassell, Scott, Scott Florence and Emile Ettedgui, Summary of Federal Construction, Building, and Housing Related Research & Development in FY1999, Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2001.

March 2003

71

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Forestry More than $21 million was invested in areas related to forestry. Nearly $16 million of this was for general forestry research. More than $4 million was focused on pest and fungi. Trade, economics, and policy round out the R&D portfolio.

Geotechnical Engineering & Soil/Groundwater Remediation Nearly $31 million was invested in this category, however, geotechnical engineering represents only $2 million of the total. Almost $29 million was invested in soil & groundwater remediation with almost all of this being a single DOD groundwater remediation field laboratory.

Land-use Design Improvements Less than $4 million was invested in R&D on improving land-use planning, policy, and design. These investments included comprehensive land use planning, sustainable development, transportation, brownfield redevelopment, deconstruction/demolition for re-development of urban areas, and urban heat islands.

It also included R&D on the application of remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) to land-use planning for urban growth, natural resource management, and farmland preservation. Several aspects of this research focused on understanding changes along the edges of urban growth areas.

Metals, Composites, & Advanced Materials (Non-wood, Non-concrete) More than $12 million was invested in metals, composites, and other advanced materials. (This category does not include composite or advanced materials containing wood or concrete; those materials are listed in their respective categories.) This category contains more than $5 million for metals, alloys, and welding; $3 million for ceramics; and over $2 million for composites. The category is rounded out with R&D on general analysis, testing, instrumentation, and polymers.

Other This category represents R&D that could not easily be put into other categories. This was typically because the activities included multiple R&D areas and/or the dissemination of test results to interested parties, including web outreach and other services. This category represented just over $4 million.

Pollution & Waste Reduction More than $15 million was invested in reducing pollution and waste. Approximately $10 million addressed multiple media (e.g., air, water, solid waste) with the Navy’s work on environmental compliance equipment being the bulk of this R&D. The next largest R&D area was improved wood processing, followed by R&D on refrigerants, paint, water, and sludge.

Reduction in Construction Work Illness & Injuries Almost $16 million was invested in reducing construction-related illness and injuries. This R&D was primarily conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) within the Department of Health and Human Services. Safety studies included surveillance on construction fatalities, intervention studies on fall protection, safer excavation technologies, back injury studies, electrical safety, and mobile equipment related injuries. Construction health projects addressed issues such as asphalt fumes, hearing loss prevention for construction trades, ergonomic interventions, control of silica exposures, tool-related vibration, and lead exposures.

Reduction in Occupant-related Illness & Injury Nearly $5 million was invested in R&D related to the health and safety of building occupants, with the primary focus being on indoor air quality (IAQ). More than $3 million was invested in general IAQ issues. Smaller sums were invested in specific sectors or technology needs including air quality in residential housing, air quality in the agricultural and livestock industries, air quality sensor development, asbestos, and low solvent adhesives.

March 2003

72

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Structural Engineering & Natural Hazards $27 million was invested in structural engineering and natural hazard R&D. Earthquake-related R&D represented more than $8 million of this category, multiple-hazard R&D was another $6.5 million, and fire research was $6 million. Smaller sums were invested in R&D on general structural analysis, dynamic and passive structural control systems, measurement and instrumentation, wind and flood hazards, as well as dams, hydraulic, and marine structures.

Transportation Infrastructure More than $130 million was invested in R&D on transportation infrastructure. Nearly all of this was from the Department of Transportation. While a lack of project descriptions made it impossible to further characterize nearly $80 million of this R&D, approximately $46 million was focused on highways and system efficiency. The remaining $4 million was split between bridges, intermodal transportation, and transit and rail R&D. Unknown Almost $19 million in potentially relevant R&D could not be categorized due to a lack of project descriptions. However, these projects were included due to the general relevance of the sponsoring agency or based on the terms used in the highly abbreviated project descriptions (e.g., “Construction (Advanced)�).

The records included in this category are all DOD records, with roughly $15.5 million from the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The balance of the category comes from the Navy, Air Force, and Army.

Wood Products & Quality Approximately $20 million was invested in R&D on wood products and wood quality. Less than 50 percent of this was invested in finding new applications for wood and wood scrap/waste ($8 million).

Roughly $3 million focused on milling techniques and technologies that reduced waste and improved resource utilization. Other areas receiving between $1 and $2 million each included wood preservatives, wood-containing composites, wood drying, structural properties of wood & wood structures, and adhesives.

DESCRIPTION BY AGENCY Department of Agriculture Nearly $41 million was invested by the Dept. of Agriculture with roughly $20 million for forestry, $17 million for wood products and quality, and $2 million for pollution and waste reduction. The remaining $2 million was spent across numerous categories.

Department of Commerce Roughly $36 million was invested by the DOC in FY99. Approximately $13 million was focused on structural engineering and natural hazards; almost $6 million on energy supply (primarily fuel cells and photovoltaics); nearly $5 million for metals, composites, and advanced materials; almost $4 million each for energy efficiency and building design improvement, and almost $2 million for building process improvements and automation.

Department of Defense The DOD invested about $60 million in R&D in FY99. Almost half of this was devoted to soil and groundwater remediation ($28 million). Of the remaining, roughly $20 million could not be categorized due to a lack of project descriptions. The balance was spread across numerous other R&D categories.

March 2003

73

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Department of Energy Out of a total of $210 million, roughly $128 million was devoted to energy supply, $53 million to energy efficiency, and $15 million for building product improvements. The remainder was spread across the other categories.

Department of Health & Human Services Of the Department’s $17 million investment, more than $15 million went to reducing construction-related illnesses and injuries with the remainder focused on reducing occupant-related illness and injury.

Department of Housing & Urban Development HUD’s R&D investment was approximately $12 million, with nearly $10 million of this being specifically for the PATH program. Of the total, $4 million focused on building product improvements, $3 million on multiple-category R&D (classified as “Other”), $1.4 million on building process improvements and automation, and $1 million for building design improvements. The remaining funds are spread across the remaining categories.

Department of Transportation In FY99, $140 million was invested by DOT. Most all of this was invested in transportation infrastructure R&D ($128 million) with the balance being for research specifically focused on the material aspects of concrete, cement, pavement, and asphalt.

Environmental Protection Agency The largest component in EPA’s $1.6 million investment was focused on reducing occupant-related illness and injury ($600,000). The balance was focused equally on the land management aspects of forestry, brownfield redevelopment, urban air pollution, and pollution and waste reduction.

National Science Foundation NSF’s $26 million was highly distributed among the categories with structural engineering and natural hazards getting the most ($13 million), followed by metals, composites, and advanced materials ($3.5 million); transportation infrastructure ($2.6 million); and geotechnical engineering (almost $2 million).

The balance of NSF’s investment was spread across the full range of categories. In addition, roughly $200,000 of R&D was performed by the Departments of Interior and Veterans Affairs as well as the National Aeronautics & Space Administration.

March 2003

74

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX D THE PISTEP PROCESS PLANT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY MODEL Preparation for the Capital Projects Technology Roadmapping workshops included review of a number of industry models for capital project processes. One model we found particularly useful was developed by the Process Industries STEP (PISTEP) Consortium.

The PISTEP activity model and its associated documentation were produced as an aid to those involved in production of Application Protocols for the Process Industries in the STEP (ISO 10303) standard. Figure D-1 on the following page, from the PISTEP document, provides a simplified view of the Process Plant Life Cycle activities and indicates areas of interest and data flows that may be modeled in a more formal manner.

The model excludes: 1. Design and Manufacture of standard parts – pumps, valves, etc.

2. Development, Marketing, and Transportation (other than pipelines) of manufactured product 3. General Management activities 4. Management of human resources and supply of computing services 5. Minor data flows, e.g. feedback loops The model includes: 1. Engineering management activities 2. Authorizations and Permissions, both internal and external (e.g. License to Operate).

March 2003

75

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Notice: The copyright of the above illustration is assigned to the Process Industries STEP Consortium and its successors. However, the contents may be freely distributed or copied, in full or part, provided due acknowledgement is made.

Figure D-1. The PISTEP model is one of the widely accepted industry models used to develop a framework for the CPTR workshops.

March 2003

76

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX E ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS A&E AI ASCE ASP

architectural & engineering artificial intelligence American Society of Civil Engineers application service provider

B2B BOM BPS

business-to-business bill of material Bechtel Procurement System

CAD CAE CERCLA CERF CIAMS CII COMET CONSIAT CPC CPTR

computer-aided design computer-aided engineering Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Civil Engineering Research Foundation Construction Information and Management System Construction Industry Institute Conceptual Modeling and Estimating Tool Construction Integration and Automation Technology Caspian Pipeline Consortium Capital Projects Technology Roadmapping

D&D DB DOE DOT

decommissioning and demolition database U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Transportation

EC EPA EPC EPCOM EPCOMD ER ERP ERM

electronic commerce U.S. Environmental Protection Agency engineer-procure-construct engineer-procure-construct-operate-maintain engineer-procure-construct-operate-maintain-decommission environmental remediation enterprise resource planning enterprise resource management

FEL FIAPP FIATECH FMECA

front-end loading Fully Integrated and Automated Project Processes Fully Integrated and Automated Technology failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis

GIS GPS

geographic information system Global Positioning System

March 2003

77

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE HR HSE HVAC

Human Resources health/safety/environmental heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

IAI IFC IMTI IT

International Alliance for Interoperability Industry Foundation Class Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative, Inc. information technology

KM KPI

knowledge management key performance indicator

LADAR LCC LCDM

laser distance and ranging life-cycle cost Life Cycle Data Management

M&O M&S MROR MSDS MTBF

management and operating modeling and simulation maintain/repair/operate/retrofit Material Safety Data Sheet mean time between failure

NASA NIST NPDES NSTC

National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Science and Technology Council

O&M ONR OOF OSHA

operation and maintenance Office of Naval Research Owner-Operator Forum U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAIR PCBs PDRI PDRI-I PID PIEBASE

Partnership for the Advancement of Infrastructure and Its Renewal polychlorinated biphenyls Project Definition Rating Index Project Definition Rating Index for Industrial Projects piping and instrumentation drawing Process Industries Executives for Achieving Business Advantage Using Standards for Data Exchange U.K. Process Industries STEP consortium Plant Information Interchange STEP (U.S. consortium-developed information exchange standard for 3D plant information)

PISTEP PLANTSTEP

QA QC

Quality Assurance Quality Control

R&D RCM RCRA RF

research and development reliability-centered maintenance Resource Conservation and Recovery Act radio frequency

March 2003

78

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE RFI RFQ ROI

request for information request for quotation return on investment

SARA SIPS SPEC STEP

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Structures Insulated Panel Systems Systems & Process Engineering Corp.

Standard for the Exchange of Product Data

TCO TIC TQM

total cost of ownership total installed cost Total Quality Management

USAF USN VR VRML

U.S. Air Force U.S. Navy virtual reality virtual reality modeling language

WBS

work breakdown structure

XML

extensible markup language

March 2003

79

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX F SOURCE MATERIAL AND SUGGESTED READING 1. Bernstein, Harvey M. and Lemer, Andrew C., Solving the Innovation Puzzle, Challenges Facing the U.S. Design & Construction Industry, ASCE Press, Library of Congress #95-49030, 1996.

2. An Approach for Measuring Reduction in Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practices for the National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6473, NIST, September 2000. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/c&bpublications.htm.

3. An Approach for Measuring Reduction in Delivery Time: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practices for the National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6189, NIST, 1998. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/c&bpublications.htm 4. An Approach for Measuring Reduction in Operation, Maintenance, and Energy Costs: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practices for the National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6185, NIST, 1998. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/c&bpublications.htm 5. Chapman, Robert E., An Approach for Measuring Reductions in Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practices for the National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6473, NIST, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 2000.

6. Annual Progress Report for Streamlining the Nations Building Regulatory Process Project, NIST, October 1999. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/pubs/APR_98_99.pdf 7. Assessing Global Research Needs – Engineering and Construction for Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Civil Engineering Research Foundation, Report # 96-5016 & 96-5016.T, 1996.

8. Automatic Detection of Significant Variation from Designed Intent Utilizing Survey Data Claims: Construction Information and Management System, From Automatics & Robotics in Construction, 17th International Symposium Proceedings, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000.

9. Belle, Richard A., PAIR Initiative: Repairing and Revitalizing Our Nation's Physical Infrastructure, Federal Highway Administration. November/December 1999. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/novdec99/pair.htm.

10. Chapman, Robert E., Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems Integration and Automation Technologies in Industrial Facilities, NISTIR 6501, NIST, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 2000.

11. Bernstein, Harvey M., Civil Engineering Research Foundation Congressional Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, 4 February 1993.

12. Bernstein, Harvey M., Priorities for Federal Innovation Reform, Civil Engineering Research Foundation paper for the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, undated. http://www.cerf.org/PDFS/prior.pdf 13. CONSIAT: Construction Integration and Automation Technology, NIST, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 31 August 31 2000.

14. Bon, Ranko and Crosthwaite, David, The Future of International Construction, Thomas Telford Publishing, 2000. ISBN: 0 7277 2749 4.

March 2003

80

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 15. Stutzman, Paul E. and Jaime Raz, Building Stones of America: 50 Years of NIST Stone Test Wall, NIST, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 2000.

16. Capital Work Process Project Definition, Construction Industries Institute.

17. Construction and Building: Interagency Program for Technical Advancement in Construction and Building. Report of the Subcommittee on Construction and Building Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, 1999. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/pubs/NSTC_99_Report.pdf 18. Construction Technology Goals: An Industry Perspective. Civil Engineering Research Foundation, September 1997. http://www.cerf.org 19. Creating the 21st Century through Innovation, Civil Engineering Research Foundation. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ 20. Design in the New Millennium, Advanced Engineering Environments, Phase 2. National Academy Press, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council, 2000. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309071259/html/ 21. Dictionary of Architecture & Construction, 3rd Edition, Edited by Cyril M. Harris, McGraw Hill Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0 07 135178 7.

22. Global Experience - Local Results – 2000 Annual Report, Materials Technology Institute. http://www.mti-link.org/ 23. High-Performance Commercial Buildings: A Technology Roadmap. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, October 2000. http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/commercial_roadmap/ 24. International Sourcebook for Construction Industry Product Assessment, Civil Engineering Research Foundation Report #95-5021, LCC #96-21796, 1996.

25. Linking the Construction Industry, Electronic Operation and Maintenance Manuals, Workshop Summary, Federal Facilities Council Report #140, National Academy Press, 2000. ISBN 0 309 07131 3.

26. Making the Nation Safer – The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism. National Research Council, Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism, National Academy Press, 2002. http://www.nap.edu/html/stct/index.html 27. Media Report: CMD Group's 5th Annual North American Construction Forecast and FEDCON, CMD Group. http://www.nacf.com/press.html 28. O’Connor, J.T. et al, Project- and Phase-Level Technology Use Metrics for Capital Facility Projects, Center for Construction Industry Studies, Report #16, University of Texas at Austin, December 2000. http://www.ce.utexas.edu/org/ccis/home.html 29. Ogershok Dave, 2001 National Construction Estimator, 49th Edition, Craftsman Books, ISSN 05475511.

30. The National Strategy For Homeland Security. Office of Homeland Security, July 2002.

31. Partnership for the Advancement of Infrastructure and its Renewal through Innovative Technologies (PAIR) White Paper, Civil Engineering Research Foundation, Washington, D.C., October 1998. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/pubs/NISTGCR_98_765.pdf 32. Palmer, Mark, PISTEP, Process Plant Engineering Activity Model, National Institute of Standards and Technology, BFRL Computer-Integrated Construction Group.

33. Project Definition Rating Index, Industrial Projects/Project Definition Rating Index, Building Projects, Construction Industry Institute. http://cii-pdri.org/ March 2003

81

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 34. Report on the Construction Industry Collaborations Workshop, NIST, March 1997. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/pubs/NISTGCR_97_711.pdf 35. Setting a National Research Agenda for the Civil Engineering Profession, Executive Summary and Volumes 1 & 2, Civil Engineering Research Foundation Reports 91-F1003 and 91-F1003A, August 1991.

36. Spillinger, Ralph S., Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process, Best Practices for Reviewing Facility Designs, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report #139, National Academy Press, 1999.

37. Sustainable Federal Facilities, A guide to integrating value engineering, life-cycle costing, and sustainable development, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report #142, National Academy Press, 2001.

38. Technology Roadmap for Materials of Construction, Operation and Maintenance in the Chemical Process Industries. Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Processing Industries, Inc., December 1998. http://www.mti-link.org/members/Documents/TechRoadmap.pdf Related Roadmaps 1. Aluminum Industry Technology Roadmap. Office of Industrial Technologies. U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.oit.doe.gov/aluminum/aluminum_roadmap.shtml 2. Building Better Homes at Lower Costs: The Industry Implementation Plan for the Residential National Construction Goals. http://www.pathnet.org/publications/congoals.html 3. Building Envelope Technology Roadmap. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/technology_roadmaps/envelope/ 4. Canadian Aluminum Industry Technological Roadmap. Industry Canada. http://www.cqrda.qc.ca/cqrda/reseau.html#cai 5. Canadian Metalcasting Technology Roadmap. Industry Canada. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_indps/trm/engdoc/Metalcasting_TRM.pdf 6. Geomatics Technology Roadmap. Industry Canada. http://www.geomatics.org/index-roadmap.html 7. Lumber and Value-Added Wood Products. Industry Canada. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/fb01315e.html 8. Steelmaking. American Iron and Steel Institute. http://www.steel.org/mt/roadmap/roadmap.htm.

9. Technology Roadmap: Electrical Power. Industry Canada. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ep01229e.html 10. Vision 2020: Lighting Technology Roadmap. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/vision2020/ 11. Window Industry Technology Roadmap. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/technology_roadmaps/windows/ 12. Technology Roadmap: Information Technology To Accelerate And Streamline Home Building, Year One Progress Report, NAHB Research Center, June 2002. www.toolbase.org/Docs/ToolBaseTop/ Research/2709_ITDraft4-16.PDF?TrackID=&CategoryID=1589&DocumentID=2709.

March 2003

82

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Relevant Websites Site

URL

Center for Building Performance & Diagnostics (NSF Industry-University Cooperative Research Center at Carnegie Mellon)

http://www.arc.cmu.edu/cbpd/index.html

Center for the Built Environment (NSF IndustryUniversity Cooperative Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley)

http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/

Civil Engineering Research Foundation

http://www.cerf.org/indexjs.htm

Construction Industry Marketplace

http://www.construction.com/

National Science and Technology Council: Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Construction and Building

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/

National Science & Technology Council: Committee on Technology

http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/committee/ct_subs.html

Office of Building Technology, State & Community Programs, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technology

http://www.oit.doe.gov/industries.shtml

Intelligent Buildings. Industry Canada

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_indps/trm/engdoc/homepage.html

March 2003

83

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX G CAPITAL PROJECTS MODEL – FUNCTIONAL ELEMENT DEFINITIONS

March 2003

84

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

CAPITAL PROJECTS MODEL – FUNCTIONAL ELEMENT DEFINITIONS Element/Sub-Element

Definition PROJECT DEFINITION & PLANNING

Business/Facility/Project Planning

Includes all activities associated with scoping the contemplated project and developing a conceptual solution for both the capital facility and its means of accomplishment; includes requirements definition and feasibility assessment, technical and business risk assessment, site evaluation and selection, and development of the financial case and initial project plan.

Conceptual Process/Facility Design

Encompasses creation of the preliminary end product (e.g., process facility, building, bridge, etc.) design, which will be passed to the Detailed Design function. Includes preparation/updating of the feasibility and financial case and establishment of the guiding engineering philosophies to be used for Detailed Engineering Design.

Detailed Process/Facility Design

Produces the detailed process facility/end product design, which provides the specifications, requirements, codes and standards, validated scale prototypes, analyses, and design and operation philosophies required for the Detailed Engineering Design phase.

Detailed Engineering Design

Produces the detailed mechanical, electrical, control/instrumentation, plant/building services, and civil/structural engineering design for the plant including all specifications, drawings, construction and commissioning plans (detailed project plan), 3-D models, materials takeoff, spares lists, and any technical data required to support permitting and licensing.

Manufacture/ Fabrication

Includes all activities associated with development, engineering, manufacture, assembly, and test of materials, equipment, and other products to be used in construction of the capital facility, both for incorporation into the end product and for use in the construction process. Includes inspection and quality control of the products and processes.

Procurement & Staging

Includes all activities associated with generating the bill of material (BOM), evaluation and selection of sources, placement and management of purchase orders, receiving inspection and storage of material and equipment, control of stocks, and preparation and delivery of appropriate quantities of stock as required to support construction activities.

Construction & Pre-Commissioning

Includes all activities associated with constructing the plant/facility/end product as defined by the detail design specifications to ready the end product for commissioning, including verification that the design has been satisfied and that the result is acceptable to the commissioning team and the ongoing design change. Specific processes employed include:

CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION

• Site Prep – includes all activities associated with making the site ready for construction, including surveying and marking, dredging and filling, grading and leveling, erection of berms and fencing, and preparation of drainage and material storage and waste disposal.

• Foundation Prep – preparation and placement of underlayers, preconstruction layout, pouring of footers and slabs, and similar activities.

• Structural Framework – preparation, erection, and affixing/integration of all primary and secondary structural supports, including girderwork, frames, exterior and interior load-bearing walls, struts, beams, braces, trusses, and similar structures.

• Exterior Functional Surfaces – preparation and installation of roofing, windows, doors, vents, masonry finishing (e.g., for weatherproofing), and similar items.

• Interior Surfaces – preparation and installation of interior walls, ceilings, flooring, and similar items.

• Interior & Process Infrastructure – preparation and installation of plumbing, piping, conduit, ductwork, wiring, cabling, etc.

• Facility Systems – preparation, installation, checkout, and acceptance of specialized systems such as HVAC, elevators/lifts,

March 2003

85

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Element/Sub-Element

Definition security systems, communications systems, fire and life safety, and similar discrete systems.

• Process Systems – preparation, installation, checkout, and acceptance of specialized systems to implement the primary function of the capital facility, such as materials/chemicals processing, refining, power generation, product manufacturing, etc.

• Finishing, Furnishings & Fittings – installation of all remaining equipment and fittings, including plumbing and electrical fixtures, floor/wall coverings, interior decor, landscaping, painting/polishing, and all other detailed actions required to ready the facility for handover to the owner/customer.

Startup/Commissioning & Handover

Includes all activities associated with proving out the operation of all systems as defined by the detailed design specifications such that the plant can be accepted for operation. Commissioning of a process facility typically consists of a number of stages progressing from activities using either no or inert process materials to the use of production process materials.

LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT

Operation & Maintenance

Includes all routine servicing required to maintain the capital facility in a productive, safe operating condition in accordance with specifications and intended use; and tracking and evaluation of various aspects of usage, including utilities consumption, performance utilization (e.g., throughput, capacity management), and similar attributes. Includes capture of lessons learned and knowledge to feed back to Design & Planning Functions; includes Asset Management decision processes.

Upgrades & Refurbishment

Includes all activities associated with “refreshing” the facility/structure to accommodate changes in requirements over time; to replace outdated or worn-out materials, equipment, or furnishings; or to enhance performance or cost-effectiveness using improved materials or systems. Also includes assuring that the baselined as-built configuration is updated and maintained (made available) to reflect any changes introduced after project completion. This phase includes the option of “renewal” – converting the facility to a substantially different use or product line. Includes Asset Management decision processes.

Decommissioning/ Disposal

Includes all activities with removing the capital facility from operation, salvaging/recycling useful materials and equipment, disposal of waste and hazardous materials, and restoring the site to a state of readiness for future intended use.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Project Coordination & Control

Has accountability for full spectrum of activities for carrying out projects. Includes collaboration and communication among all internal and external functions involved in the whole project to achieve project goals. Directs and provides systems to ensure seamless integration and successful execution of capital projects and hand-off to the customer (in time, within budget, with required quality). Makes decisions at highest level about projects and their strategic direction. Integrates project phases, assuring interoperability of activities in all the sub-element functions. Project manager collaborates on decisions about use of available, proven technologies and resources. Identifies, acquires and organizes resources needed to carry out project. Monitors, analyzes and forecasts impact of actual cost, schedule and productivity against approved baseline plan, feeds information back to functional elements, and assures that any needed corrective actions are taken.

Scope Management

Manages the scope of the project to fit the business objective. Assures that any changes planned or made in process are reviewed and approved for applicability and permissibility and subsequently captured in the master configuration baseline (i.e., asbuilt drawings).

Quality Management

Includes all activities associated with assuring that a project is accomplished in accordance with the design specifications and drawings, systematically assessing the quality of the work, processes, end products, and materials to ensure conformance to applicable regulations and codes of federal, state, and local regulatory and oversight agencies, including final inspection and acceptance by the owner/operator.

Licensing & Regulatory

Ensures that the project complies with all applicable regulations and requirements. Includes all activities associated with obtaining

March 2003

86

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Element/Sub-Element

Definition required federal, state, and local permits and licenses for construction and commissioning of the capital facility, and assuring compliance with all permits and licenses in the operation, maintenance, and decommissioning and dismantling phase of the facility life cycle. Note: the design, analysis, and documentation activities associated with preparing permit and license applications are included under the Project Definition & Planning element above.

Financial/Business Management Safety, Health & Environment

March 2003

Includes all finance and business-related activities including budget, funding approval, cost collection and reporting, administrative record keeping, accounts payable/receivable, regulatory reporting, and performance monitoring and assessment. Includes coordination of inter-organizational financial arrangements as required.

Includes all activities associated with providing for and assuring a safe working and operating environment for all personnel, equipment, and other assets, including compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

87

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX H WORKSHOP 1 ACTION IMPERATIVES ACTION IMPERATIVE 1: INTEGRATED LIFE-CYCLE SYSTEM GOAL: Develop and deploy a system enabling best-value business decisions at every stage of the life cycle based on total life-cycle considerations (e.g., downstream O&M and D&D needs) and providing accurate and current information from all operations and domains.

SCOPE The scope of this imperative includes all issues associated with life-cycle responsibility, from project inception to construction to dismantlement. The objective is to develop an advisor system for all aspects of capital projects. In the planning and design stages, it provides knowledge about compliance and regulatory issues, with emphasis on environmental concerns, and guides the design for decommissioning and dismantlement. In process design, it supports the selection of best process options for waste elimination, energy use, maintainability, and similar life-cycle factors. For construction operations, it is a real-time asset for helping assure the best decisions in response to scope changes or unplanned events, and for counsel in environmental compliance. This system will be integrated with all other capital project enterprise systems, such as automated design and automated performance monitoring, to support a comprehensive information and knowledge-based electronic environment.

ISSUES/BARRIERS Issues that need to be addressed in developing this system include the complexity and range of the data and knowledge that must be collected, the challenge of managing those assets, and mechanisms for implementation.

Most of the data issues that must be resolved are similar to those with other databases and applications.

Clearly, detailed data is required at the lowest level of fidelity – not at just a “document” level. The knowledge base must provide easy access in a shared yet secure environment. Standards regarding definitions and format for complex forms of knowledge must be established, and the knowledge base must be populated with accurate, reliable information drawing on the experience of all of industry.

The issue of knowledge vs. data is significant. If the function of a system is to provide data for other systems to process, then data is the goal. However, the goal of this system is to provide advice, which is the interpretation of knowledge with respect to a defined set of conditions.

Daunting data management issues must be addressed. The diversity of environmental regulations, particularly as international boundaries are crossed, makes the challenge much larger. The system must support differing regulations, languages, and cultures. Environmental issues are also difficult to bound, since they are inextricably linked to bureaucratic interpretation by different agencies with conflicting agendas. The system must enable access to legacy data, and it must be forward-compatible to support future data structures.

March 2003

88

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE For the system to realize its objectives, it must have strong industry support, both for development and for population of the knowledge base. That support can only be secured by the presentation of a strong business case for its success and impact. It must be recognized that the system could be perceived as threatening to some entrenched interests, and these issues would need attention. If early support can be garnered for pilot applications, the system can be grown to full implementation. It should be noted that the development of such systems are well within the scope and mission of government-funded research, in both academia and the national/federal laboratory structure.

MAJOR TASKS 1. Develop the business case for the initiative and the product, including a clear definition of goals and requirements.

2. Identify organization(s) to perform the work, and secure the needed funding.

3. Assess the industry for existing/emerging solutions that are applicable as points of leverage and create partnerships (e.g., ASP/ERP/ERM systems).

4. Develop detailed system requirements and functional specs based on user-defined needs across the entire capital projects value web.

5. Bring a critical mass of committed partners together to develop and pilot a prototype system.

6. Develop data/knowledge access and management strategies and build the knowledge base.

7. Define a phased development, testing, and implementation approach.

8. Populate the system for selected pilot projects and execute those pilots.

BENEFITS Although business decisions usually are focused on the bottom line, with this activity there is an opportunity to satisfy that need in a significant way while serving the greater good. Systematizing permitting processes and providing the best advice on all life-cycle issues will reduce the time span from project inception to construction start and also minimize design rework loops, resulting in large savings. The system will enable facility and structure designs to be optimized for all life-cycle performance attributes.

This will reduce design and construction costs, utilities consumption, reduce maintenance and repair, eliminate safety issues and environmental insults, and enable the facility or structure to be quickly taken down and recycled at the end of its life. These features translate to life-cycle savings on the order of tens to hundreds of millions for large, complex facilities.

By assuring that all factors are considered and the right solutions are implemented, risks to capital project success are reduced and probability of success is increased. This elimination of uncertainty reduces the need for contingencies (with attendant benefits in the capital financing equation), and will enable more aggressive decision-making in other project areas.

An additional benefit of this imperative is that it does not require any radically new technologies and can be quickly implemented in pilots at fairly low cost.

March 2003

89

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

ACTION IMPERATIVE 2: AUTOMATED INTELLIGENT PROCESSES FOR FACILITY LIFE CYCLE GOAL: Provide intelligent systems and devices that can enhance/augment human capabilities and reduce human intervention in facility design, construction, operation, and life-cycle support.

SCOPE The scope of this activity includes the application of knowledge in creating automated, informationdriven systems that provide intelligent control of capital project processes. These systems must be able to apply knowledge, from both experience and scientific principles, to support decision-making and guide the execution and control of discrete functions. Intelligent control is based on the ability to sense, analyze, and control systems and subsystems, based on an understanding of the desired and undesired operating conditions and results.

Several approaches are successful in creating knowledge-based systems, many of which have emerged from decades of research in artificial intelligence. Neural networks, which mimic the processing style of the human brain, can be trained to accurately predict system performance. Fuzzy logic systems are used in control applications to collect and analyze seemingly disjointed information and process it into meaningful results. Intelligent agents can seek out needed information and do certain tasks independently, or simply to organize and present the information.

For intelligent action, a system has to perceive and understand the situation, then take the correct action.

Higher functions such as “intelligence” can be added to systems only after other elements are present: integration of continuous streams of data from different sources, real-time processing, etc.

Integration of knowledge systems with intelligent control presents an ultimate opportunity for dramatic change. Knowledge-based systems can be used for information generation (automated design, scheduling and resource allocation). The results of the automated operation can be integrated with modeling and simulation systems to drive a comprehensive simulation model that predicts the status, in real time, of every component and parameter of the system. Intelligent control systems can be developed to sense the environment and assure that all operations are performing within control limits. Deviations, or trends toward deviations, can be resolved in an intelligent, hierarchical control structure that prevents problems from escalating or cascading through the system.

In defining the scope of this activity, its ultimate goals must be acknowledged. By building knowledgebased advisors and intelligent systems as building blocks, and integrating them in a modular, plug-andplay environment, the systems that appear on the surface as challenges too large to tackle, can be realized.

The ultimate objective: a seamlessly integrated, knowledge-based capital projects environment including: • Capture of project requirements and optimized planning based on business and technical requirements • Automated design of every aspect of the capital project • Seamlessly integrated, intelligent data and information management • Intelligent construction operations • Life-cycle operations and maintenance as part of the integrated project planning and execution process.

March 2003

90

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

ISSUES/BARRIERS One of the major barriers to automated and intelligent systems is a cultural one. Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of replacing human intelligence with “artificial intelligence,� due to factors such as labor sensitivity and aversion to risk. For this and other reasons, discussion of artificial intelligence has been replaced with discussions of how knowledge can be managed for productivity and cost benefit.

Another barrier is the linkage to knowledge management, a topic that has attracted much trade press attention and funding. While much good has come from the movement, high expectations led to many disappointments and a view that much of the funding was wasted. The indiscriminate capture of everything known is not the goal. The goal should be the capture and organized representation of meaningful knowledge in a framework that allows it to be easily applied to better perform a specific job.

An enabler for knowledge-based systems is a common understanding and vocabulary. There are efforts (such as the PlantSTEP initiative) to create a standard vocabulary, but this has proven to be a difficult task. A comprehensive ontology (understanding of terms and their context) is essential to providing a solid foundation for intelligent systems that are able to interact effectively.

Availability and creation of knowledge is also an issue. In most of today’s advisor applications (like the spell-checker in a word-processing program), knowledge is simply captured in rule form from the experts.

The ability of systems to learn from scientific principles, documents (operation instructions and procedures, etc.) and from experience in performing their functions, and then refine that knowledge for better decision-making, is vital.

MAJOR TASKS 1. Create a dictionary to capture meaning of terms and designs used for the construction industry.

Enrich the dictionary beyond the definitions to an understanding of context.

2. Develop the automated ability to translate between the languages and standards used for different parts or tasks of a capital project (interoperability of terms and standards for knowledge representation).

3. Develop a broadly applicable knowledge repository framework and adopt standard methods for digitally capturing and representing knowledge.

4. Build learning mechanisms for capturing expertise relevant to the capital construction industry and for managing that knowledge via the repository.

5. Select high-priority applications and apply knowledge-based systems and intelligent control in automating the generation of design information and the control of related operations.

6. Build the knowledge bases, application-by-application and pilot-by-pilot, to systematically demonstrate value and feasibility of automated intelligent systems and processes in all aspects of the project life cycle.

BENEFITS Many examples of dramatic cost savings have been documented through the application of knowledgebased systems in different industries. Improved capabilities and widespread application will multiply these benefits. For individual applications (within specific domains of a capital project), automated information generation will reduce the time required for information-intensive tasks from weeks to days or hours. As the integrated advisory and design systems move to reality, these time spans will be reduced to mere minutes, with corresponding savings in labor cost and error avoidance. Intelligent systems also will reduce cost and schedule uncertainty, thereby reducing risks for the whole project. Intelligent systems and

March 2003

91

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE process assistants will provide dramatically faster ability to respond to market opportunities and changes in requirements and business conditions.

Armed with a growing knowledge base and a high-fidelity, multi-dimensional simulation model of the project product and execution processes, intelligent systems can focus on what-if analysis of a given situation, apply changes to the model quickly with minimal effort, explore and evaluate multiple scenarios, and rapidly drive to the best decisions. An intelligent system could autonomously monitor all information concerning a project in the background, and alert management when attractive options for costsavings or other improvements become available. Such a system could enable true collaboration among all project stakeholders by providing shared access to industry knowledge.

Probably the highest level of intelligent automation will come when genuine understanding of natural language (not just speech recognition) becomes available, enabling the capture of the intent of verbal instructions and relating that to the situation and previous knowledge. This will enable systems to learn and ask questions of experts, and use the accumulated knowledge to make increasingly better decisions over time.

Intelligent control will be the mechanism that automatically translates knowledge, data, and decisions into correct actions – from a single construction task or process operation, to a complex array of integrated activities and systems. Savings from assured best operational practices will be dramatic. Continuously optimized and controlled processes will dramatically reduce cost and time by eliminating downtime for critical operations, by eliminating lags between tasks, by multiplying the productivity of workers, and by preventing waste and error through assured quality.

ACTION IMPERATIVE 3: AUTOMATIC REAL-TIME PERFORMANCE/STATUS TRACKING GOAL: Automatically collect pertinent, real-time status and performance data from all aspects of the Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Operations, Maintenance, and Decommissioning (EPCOMD) operations, and manage and supply this data in the form of meaningful information to provide clear visibility and precise control of all processes.

SCOPE There are three components within the scope of this imperative: 1) data collection and management, 2) automated tracking, and 3) performance monitoring.

The scope includes the collection and management of all information necessary for management and control from the time that the business plan is set and requirements are in place, through to the end of facility/structure decommissioning. Data collection from multiple sources and locations will be totally automated, and there will be only single entry of any discrete data point. “All data” includes input from planners, engineers, subcontractors, suppliers, operations and business managers, foremen, workers, sensors on the job site, devices attached to equipment, and other sources. Data to be collected includes: • Facility/structure detailed design, down to material level (baseline for assessment) • Detailed master schedule and cost allocation, down to lowest level of the WBS and BOM and linked to estimate/quote source (baseline for assessment) • Master simulation model of workflow and tasking (baseline for assessment)

March 2003

92

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Individual task status vs. plan at specified intervals – by minute, hour, day, week, etc. as appropriate for each task – from all task leads, vendors, suppliers, and subcontractors during design, procurement, construction, etc.

• Operational system/equipment/component status (from sensors) vs. defined performance requirements • Resources (equipment, materials, supplies, and labor) location, status, and utilization vs. plan • Environmental and health/safety data (for compliance assessment and reporting) • Problem reports and status from all functions and systems.

The other part of the equation is what can be done with the data beyond keeping managers apprised of status. The system will be utilized to provide information for any other system or application that needs it (e.g., support financial systems such as payroll and accounts payable), thus greatly reducing the time and cost of routine administrative functions and payment cycles of contractors for work performed.

ISSUES/BARRIERS Issues that must be considered focus on availability of and access to the needed data, availability of appropriate sensors, the structure and operation of the database, interoperability of sensors and data systems, and the utilization of the system for cost effective results.

The success of the automated tracking system is strongly dependent on access to the right data, and the management of that data to provide interoperable access to systems that need it. Today, most data is managed internal to the systems, and exchange is from system-to-system. Control of distributed data in a secure environment that delivers immediate access to authorized users who need it, while preventing unauthorized access, is an issue to be addressed.

The tracking system requires active sensors to automatically capture and provide “net relevant” information. This demands a sensing environment whereby status of all materials, personnel, systems, equipment, etc. is automatically fed to the system. These different assets require different types of sensors – cheap, reusable sensors for bulk materials, ruggedized sensors for harsh environments, multispectral sensors for assessing different electromagnetic parameters, etc., each with different onboard processing demands but all able to sense, interpret input, and communicate net relevant information to the system for reporting and control.

For automated performance tracking to be successful, it must have a positive impact on the bottom line. A business case must document the cost of redundant data entry and the lack of needed information, and be established early in the activity to develop the necessary support.

The “multi-D” master simulation model is a critical capability for automated tracking. The ability to know what “should be” the state of the project, coupled with the real-time data that defines the present state, is key to converting status input to requirements for command action.

MAJOR TASKS 1. Develop a business case for automated performance/status tracking.

2. Determine the state of the art in enabling technologies and benchmark best practices.

3. Establish a common understanding of what will be accomplished, including a comprehensive definition of the intelligent job site, and a requirements document as an agreed-upon strategy for moving forward.

4. Identify data requirements to enable the system, identify the data now available, and conduct a gap analysis to identify needed data that is not now available.

March 2003

93

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 5. Define a strategy for integration of the data management and automated tracking capability with the master simulation model.

6. Develop a data management framework and populate the database.

7. Develop sensor systems and processing capabilities to automate data capture.

8. Conduct phased pilots of the automated tracking system for various elements of EPCOM organizations.

9. Develop strategies for integration of automated tracking into existing facilities and projects.

10. Conduct pilots in existing facilities.

11. Use the pilot project results to refine requirements for an integrated “production” system.

BENEFITS The benefit of automated real-time performance tracking is universal and continuous access to all the right data and information – and just the right information – needed to manage the construction and operation of the capital facility in optimum fashion. Integration with the multi-D master simulation model will provide the capability to instantly identify any deviation in performance against the defined plan, enabling corrective action and rapid containment of impacts. These capabilities will eliminate many of the uncertainties which now frustrate the capital projects industry, delivering assurance of performance to cost, schedule and quality commitments.

Automated tracking will enable instant visibility of project progress for every function, including activities across the supply network. Any deviation from cost or schedule or defined performance parameters, or any potential problem recognized based on automated trend analysis, will be immediately flagged for attention. Problem resolution will be enhanced because all information needed for evaluating options and determining solutions will be right to hand. Materials and other resources will be available as needed and where needed, or the reasons why will be quickly visible.

The system will enable new supplier relationships. Just-in-time delivery of materials and equipment will be achievable because of the continuous visibility of status and location across the supply network.

Business functions will be enhanced. For example, payment for subcontracted work can be done automatically via funds transfer after automated notification of proper completion as determined by integrated sensing and control functions. This will eliminate delays and paperwork, greatly reducing administrative requirements and tremendously strengthening the trust in relationships, in turn eliminating adversarial behavior and reducing litigation.

March 2003

94

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

ACTION IMPERATIVE 4: UNIFIED DATA, INFORMATION, & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT GOAL: Provide “universal” standards and technologies for sharing, managing, and using data, information, and knowledge in every phase, element, and function of the capital facility life cycle.

SCOPE This imperative is all about access to the right data, information, and knowledge to support the planning and execution of capital projects. The scope includes all activities associated with acquiring data, information, and knowledge and managing those assets for controlled access on demand by people and systems. It does not include the applications.

Management of information is critically important to the capital projects industry, as it is to all industry sectors. Inability to access needed information (and lack of knowledge about what information even exists) is very costly in capital projects. The lack of interoperability inherent to current information systems results in the re-entry of data, introduction of errors, and the loss of valuable information. While the magnitude of the cost of data re-entry has not been fully documented for the capital projects industry, a 1999 study by NIST detailed a cost to the automotive industry of over $1 billion/year. It would be safe to say that hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars are lost in the capital projects industry each year because of similar data/information management issues.

While the scope of the imperative includes data, information, and knowledge, the topic of knowledge management is addressed separately, because the strategies are different. Knowledge management has emerged as an exciting field over the past few years. Many companies have invested in capturing the critical knowledge of their staff, and in managing that knowledge as a corporate resource. “Lessons learned” systems are an example of a rudimentary strategy for knowledge management. The challenge of this activity is to go beyond the bounds of individual organizations, to build a shared knowledge system that will serve an entire industry.

ISSUES/BARRIERS The challenge of universal data access in a controlled environment is large. Most of the issues relate to a consensus to cooperate and the business case to do so; the availability of information; standards and mechanisms for capturing validated data and knowledge in useful form; and strategies for information sharing.

Before a shared information effort is undertaken, it must be put in the business context. There must be a business case to cause companies to want to support the effort. As far as can be determined, there has been no effort to quantify the benefits of such an undertaking, although most recognize the inherent value.

A barrier that should be acknowledged is the short-term focus and competitive nature of all industries, which makes these kinds of crosscutting strategic thrusts difficult to justify internally to an organization.

The counter to that argument is that the champions and early adopters will gain a significant competitive advantage that will take years for the lagging adopters to make up.

Definition of the right information is a major barrier. The scope of information related to the capital projects industry is huge. It is important that the right focus be established to assure the maximum benefit.

While it might be tempting to start with regulations and compliance data (such as Material Safety Data Sheets), the initiative must address real problem areas where solutions will deliver the greatest return on investment, financially and from other performance perspectives.

March 2003

95

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Access control is another major issue. Companies will want to protect proprietary advantage, and knowledge is the wellspring of that advantage. There may also be information that the industry needs to share that is simply not available. A cooperative environment where the potential users determine the information of value and agree to help deliver this information is imperative for success.

Methods of information management must be determined. If there were clear and unique standards for data representation, this challenge would be lessened. Systems must be established to assure the seamless exchange of data among repositories and applications.

Knowledge management brings additional challenges. Agreement on the right way to perform work or to process information is the basis for rule generation in knowledge capture. That consensus does not come easy. Rules must be scientifically sound, which implies an R&D investment. The ability to maintain a dynamic, learning knowledge base demands feedback into the knowledge repository and the continuing analysis and processing of information. Knowledge management strategies are emerging, and may not be compatible with current ways of managing data and information. An interesting challenge for this activity will be the development of a storage, management, and retrieval strategy that satisfies all information needs.

MAJOR TASKS Data/Information Repository: 1. Establish a core team of partner organizations to champion and execute the initiative.

2. Survey ongoing related activities in the capital projects industry and other sectors. Review the lessons learned and develop a requirements document and plan.

3. Understand the data formats of important industry systems that must be accommodated. Determine available standards and strategies, and select a preferred approach that supports the ultimate objectives.

4. Define and prioritize early data sets for inclusion, with identification of points for decision and refinement.

5. Develop the prototype database and populate with available data. Evaluate in pilots.

6. Establish permanent “housing� and management strategy for the system, and grow it to its intended industry-wide utilization.

Shared Knowledge Repository 1. Establish a collaborative group forum of experts for exchange of knowledge about the capital projects industry, and utilize this forum as a knowledge-capture mechanism.

2. Benchmark some of the leaders in knowledge management (e.g. Chevron/Texaco, Xerox, Roche, and document lessons learned and keys to success.

3. Evaluate available knowledge management strategies from a technical and business feasibility perspective, and determine the best methods to carry forward.

4. Pick a starting point connected with systems that have agreed-upon value (e.g. Primavera, SAP, Intergraph), and build the knowledge base around the common tools. Engage the application community to support necessary extensions and enhancements.

5. Grow and pilot the knowledge system into a broadly shared knowledge repository, managed for the success of the capital projects industry.

March 2003

96

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

BENEFITS The benefits are diverse, but they all revolve around the ability to have the needed information, when it is needed, and validated for assured value. From this availability comes enhanced performance of critical activities, better decisions, seamless integration of processes, and elimination of the interoperability barrier. All of these factors translate to huge cost savings and shorter cycle times in every activity, particularly in the design and planning phase.

There are specific advantages. The sharing of data enables the supply network to operate more effectively with instant sharing of information. For companies that compete and operate globally, there are competitive advantages to be realized through the cost reductions and efficiencies of better information and better information availability. The global competitiveness of the U.S. industry itself would be strengthened.

The knowledge management strategy supports many applications such as the intelligent jobsite, automated design, and automated tracking, all of which will deliver dramatic cost and efficiency improvements.

March 2003

97