Upload
anis-quinn
View
221
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CII RT 211: Effective Use of the
Global Engineering Workforce
ModeratorKarl E. Seil
Stone & Webster, A Shaw Group Co.
CII Annual Conference 2005
IMPLEMENTATION SESSION
CII Research Team 211 Members
• Robert J. Beaker - General Motors Corporation (co-chair)• Karl E. Seil - Stone & Webster, A Shaw Group Co. (co-chair)• Hector Brouwer de Koning - Black & Veatch• Dennis Chastain - Mustang Engineers & Constructors, L.P.• Chuan ‘Victor’ Chen - Pennsylvania State University• Gregory Gould - Burns & McDonnell• John Hackney - Nova Chemicals Corporation• Lona Hankins - ConocoPhillips • Robert E. Houghtaling - DuPont Engineering• George Joseph - Pennsylvania State University• Aivars E. Krumins - ABB Lummus Global• John I. Messner - Pennsylvania State University• James B. Mynaugh - Rohm and Haas Company• Batuk Patel - The Dow Chemical Co.• Matthew J. Petrizzo - Washington Group International• Reinhard Pratt - AMEC, Inc.• Gerald A. Schacht - Abbott Laboratories• Bruce A. Strupp – Perot Systems• H. Randolph Thomas - Pennsylvania State University• Todd White - Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
Panel Members
Todd WhiteEngineering ManagerAnheuser-Busch, Inc.St. Louis, MO
Aivars KruminsV.P. – Engineering / ProcurementABB Lummus GlobalHouston, TX
Marcel PrunaicheManaging DirectorWashington Group InternationalRomanian Operations CenterBucharest, Romania
Pooran TripathiManaging Director, Stone & Webster, Rolta Ltd. (SWRL)Mumbai, India
Local Remote
Lona HankinsProject Team LeaderConocoPhillips.Belle Chasse, LA
Dr. John MessnerAssistant Professor, Arch. Engr.Penn State University
A Global Virtual Engineering Team (GVET) is a group of geographically dispersed engineers that needs to overcome:
• Space and Time issues,
• Function and Organizational barriers, and
• National, and Cultural differences
Definition
Brief RT 211 Chronology
• Kickoff Meeting – March 2004
• Survey – April – June, 2004
– Total number of survey responses: 47
• 19 Owner and 28 EPC individuals submitted surveys– Companies: 33
• 13 Owners and 20 EPC companies
• In-Depth Interviews (21 total) – June – August, 2004
– Domestic: 17 managers– Foreign office interviews: 4 managers
• Detailed Case Study – July - August 2004
– 5 projects within one CII company
• GVET Planner Development – August 2004 – March 2005
– 2 Focus Group Meetings to Validate Framework
1.Determine driving factors for GVET.
2.Determine current status of GVETs, tools, and work processes.
3.Define criteria for successful GVET adoption and lessons learned from past experiences.
Develop a planning tool for global engineering work force establishment
and maintenance.
Objectives
GVET Planner Demo
Panel Members
Todd WhiteEngineering ManagerAnheuser-Busch, Inc.St. Louis, MO
Aivars KruminsV.P. – Engineering / ProcurementABB Lummus GlobalHouston, TX
Marcel PrunaicheManaging DirectorWashington Group InternationalRomanian Operations CenterBucharest, Romania
Pooran TripathiManaging Director, Stone & Webster, Rolta Ltd. (SWRL)Mumbai, India
Local Remote
Lona HankinsProject Team LeaderConocoPhillips.Belle Chasse, LA
Dr. John MessnerAssistant Professor, Arch. Engr.Penn State University
Drivers of GVET
DriversOwner EPC Total
Rank Rank Rank
Need to reduce engineering service cost 1 1 1
Competition 7 2 2
Global customers or local customers 6 3 3
Locate services close to the project location 2 7 4
Reduce the engineering schedule 4 6 5
Expand detailing work for same cost 5 8 6
Success & Failure Factors
Success Factors Failure FactorsClear & frequent communication, periodic face-to-face meetings (16)
Lack poor communication, lack of face-to-face meetings (19)
Good communication tools & IT compatibility (15)
Lack of understanding of local work practices, cultural differences, and/or language issues (14)
Standard work processes and communication procedures (11)
Lack of management involvement & experienced leadership (9)
Clearly defined scope & expectations (10)
Changes (goal, scope), slow response to change (8)
Clearly defined roles & responsibilities (9)
Incompatible or poor technology, including hardware and software (7)
Impact of GVET on Project
Owner EPC Majority Opinion
Engineering Cost 50.0 % 46.1 %More than 10%
reduction
Construction Cost 71.4 % 79.1 % No impact
Engineering Time 57.1 % 40.0 % No impact
Overall Project Delivery Time
57.1 % 60.0 % No impact
Engineering Quality 57.1 % 72.0 % No impact
Construction Quality 64.2 % 79.1 % No impact
Typical Impact on:
OWNER EPC
more than 10%
increase
0-10% increase
Same0-10%
reduction
more than 10%
reduction
more than 10% increase
0-10% increase
Same0-10%
reduction
more than 10%
reduction
ENGINEERING COST 7.1 0 7.1 35.7 50.0 0 3.8 7.6 42.3 46.1
CONSTRUCTION COST 0 7.1 71.4 14.2 7.1 0 0 79.1 20.8 0
ENGINEERING TIME 0 7.1 57.1 28.5 7.1 4.0 28.0 40.0 20.0 8.0
OVERALL PROJECT DELIVERY TIME
0 14.2 57.1 28.5 0 0 4.0 60.0 32.0 4.0
ENGINEERING QUALITY
7.1 14.2 57.1 21.4 0 4.0 8.0 72.0 16.0 0
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY
0 21.4 64.2 14.2 0 4.1 16.6 79.1 0 0
For projects performed by your company with Global Virtual Engineering Teams, what is the typical impact on:
Impact of GVET
Panel Discussion / Q & A
Todd WhiteEngineering ManagerAnheuser-Busch, Inc.St. Louis, MO
Aivars KruminsV.P. – Engineering / ProcurementABB Lummus GlobalHouston, TX
Marcel PrunaicheManaging DirectorWashington Group InternationalRomanian Operations CenterBucharest, Romania
Pooran TripathiManaging Director, Stone & Webster, Rolta Ltd. (SWRL)Mumbai, India
Local Remote
Lona HankinsProject Team LeaderConocoPhillips.Belle Chasse, LA
Dr. John MessnerAssistant Professor, Arch. Engr.Penn State University
Experience of Survey Participants
• Greater than 5 years of personal experience with global virtual engineering teams:Owner: 15.7%EPC: 55.5%
• Greater than 5 years of company experience with global virtual engineering teams:Owner: 52.6%EPC: 62.9%
• Companies with more than US$100 million size projects executed with global engineering teams:Owner: 47.3%EPC: 55.5%
• Owner: 57.8% use global VT on many projects EPC: 66.6% use global VT on many projects
• Plans to increase implementation of global virtual teaming:Owner: 68.7%EPC: 92.5%
Team Dynamics / Commitment
• 74% of EPC respondents have permanent domestic & overseas engineering design offices participating in global virtual teaming.
• How does global VT impact the “team” feeling for individuals who are geographically isolated from the majority of the group?
Owner 73.3% responded as ‘feel LESS like an integrated team’EPC 68.0% responded as ‘feel LESS like an integrated team’
• Team members have less trust:Owner 57.1% EPC 61.5%
• Does a Global VT increase the time spent by your project management team on the project?
Owner 42.8% responded ‘yes’Range: 25%, 20%, 15+%, 15%, 10%, 3-5%
EPC 77.7% responded ‘yes’ Range: 75%, 40%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 5%, 2%
Technology
ResultOWNER EPC
Responses Percentage Responses PercentageE-mail 15 93.7% 27 100.0%
FTP 5 31.2% 16 59.2%
Video-Conferencing 11 68.7% 21 77.7%
Web-Conferencing 10 62.5% 15 55.5%
Virtual Private Networking 4 25.0% 16 59.2%
Project Specific Websites 10 62.5% 22 81.4%
Applications for Simultaneous Remote Collaboration
5 31.2% 17 62.9%
Common Repositories for Project Information
14 87.5% 20 74.0%
Knowledge Management Systems, e.g.: lesson learned databases
6 37.5% 18 66.6%