aker kvaerner, inc. cii benchmarking and metrics aker kvaerner data name of presenter: m. coy...
TRANSCRIPT
Aker Kvaerner, Inc.
CII Benchmarking and MetricsAker Kvaerner DataName of presenter: M. Coy Campbell, P.E. Date: 10 June 03
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 2
Benchmarking and Use of CII Data
Presentation Agenda Overview of Aker Kvaerner Participation Review of Some of our Performance Data Our Interpretations
Usefulness of CII Database Cause & Effect –Best Practice vs. Performance Input Quality Control of Projects
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 3
CII Performance Metrics
Performance Metrics Cost Schedule Safety Changes Rework
CII Best Practice Use: Safety (Zero Accidents) Team Building Constructability Pre-Project Planning Design/Information Technology Project Change Management Materials Management Planning for Start-up Quality Management Strategic Alliances
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 4
AK Submitted Projects
1997:
H95130 - Evalca (add-on)
1998:
H94136 - Methanex (addition)
H94156 - Agrevo (BW) (grass roots)
H95021 - Akzo Nobel (grass roots)
H95055 - Air Products (addition)
H96019 - BASF-2EHA (BW) (addition)
H96145 - Arco EB-1 (modernization)
H97084 - TransCanada (addition)
1999:
H9811300 Bayer TDI (add-on)
2000:
H96198.91 - Bayer PU (grass roots)
H96232 - Bayer Chlor-Alkali (grass roots)
2001:
H98109.04 - Lyondell Polyols (add-on)
H99121 - Conoco Syria (grass roots)
H00052.10 - Distrigas (add-on)
2002:H97072 - Optimal
H99129 - BP GTL
H99171 - Dow Freeport
H01118 - Chevron Sanha
Red Projects submitted by NJ office
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 5
AK Implementation of CII Best Practices Use
Comparatively Good In Safety Upward trending in
Teambuilding & Change Management 1997-2000
2001 saw decrease in most Best Practice Implementation
What was the effect on Performance? 0
123456789
10
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Safety Team Bldg Constr. Change Mgt
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 6
Project Budget Factor =
Actual Total Project Cost
Initial Predicted Project Cost + Approved Changes
Project Schedule Factor = Actual Total Project Duration
Initial Predicted Project Duration + Approved Changes
Quick Review “Degradation” in Performance in
2000 -2001 Significant change in schedule factor
in 2001
AK Performance - Project Budget and Schedule
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
PB Factor PS Factor
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 7
AK Performance – Analysis of Budget/Schedule Factor - Individual Projects
0.70.75
0.80.85
0.90.95
11.05
1.11.15
1.2Budget Factor Schedule Factor
TIME
B’w
ater
B’w
ater
Further Investigation•Two projects real outliers•H96232 entered in 2000•H0052.10 entered in 2001
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 8
AK Performance - Project Cost Growth vs. Competition
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Project Cost Growth Factor =
Actual Project Cost - Initial Predicted Project Cost
Initial Predicted Project Cost
Quick ConclusionConsistent 1997-1999
Investigation on 2000 & 2001Outliers adversely impacted resultSmall sample size in 2000 (2 projects) & 2001 (3 projects)
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Quartile Factor
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 9
Cost Growth Factor - Individual Projects
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
TIME
•Three Projects adversely affect outcome for Cost Growth
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 10
AK Performance - Recordable Incident Rate
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
0
5
10
15
20
25 Recordable Incident Rate =
Total Recordable Cases x 200,000
Total Craft Workhours
Review – Relatively Good performance until 2001
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Quartile RIR
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 11
Interpretations of Benchmarking Database Use
Best Practice Implementation “score” corresponds with the company quartile performance
Limited number of projects in the database skews data – outliers have too great effect Our outlier was a project for a client that performs Capital Projects
infrequently (and not a member of CII). Very poor project definition.
Some “good” projects looked bad by analysis Of course, varying definition of successful projects
AK investigated process for inputting projects and found very inconsistent – again skewing our outputs Previously - Project questionnaires filled by project teams Now – filled out by trained Benchmark Associate
June 2003
Aker KvaernerPage 12
Recommendations & Conclusions
Ensure Consistency of project input. Use your trained Benchmarking Associate
Add Filtering Mechanism to the database “queries”. Sometimes Outliers need to be seen but not heard
The more projects entered, the better the trend analysis (Statistics 101!)
The database is consistent in its evaluation (Best Practice Implementation vs. company Quartile)
But….Trend analysis of Best Practice Implementation & a successful project really is a soft, interpretive process