Interface Management An Emerging Project Management Discipline

Interface Management
An Emerging Project Management Discipline

1. The Knowledge Leader for Project Success
Owners ■ Contractors Academics
Interface Management
An Emerging Project Management Discipline
Justin Goodman, Jacobs
SangHyun Lee, University of MichiganTodd LaBar, Air Products
2014 Cll Annual Conference
July 21-23 Indianapolis, Indiana

2. Research Team 302 - Interface Management
Seungjun Ahn, U of Michigan (new Ph.D.)
Paul Burroughs, Ontario Power GenerationMatt Cage, Alstom PowerJustin Goodman, JacobsCarl Haas, U of WaterlooJeff Hocke, Lauren Engineers & ConstructorsBrian Johnson, Wood Group MustangTodd LaBar**, Air ProductsSangHyun Lee, U of MichiganDebora Mello Ferreira, Petrobras
* Chair
** Vice Chair
Alexandre Rocha Do Nascimento, Petrobras
Marty Reibold, UPS Corp.Samin Shokri, U of Waterloo (new Ph.D.)Chris Smith, Architect of the CapitolTim Swenk, McDermott InternationalJames Thorne, WorleyParsonsPaul Tompkins, Coreworx Inc.Paul Van DerMerwe, Tenova Bateman SALynn Neil Wheatcraft*, Dresser-RandMenzies Wilson, Smithsonian Institution

3. Learning Objectives
Learning about Interface Management (IM)
- What is Interface Management?- Why IM?- What level of IM is appropriate for a project or organization?
Understanding research findings
Introducing available IM products and tools

4. What is “Interface Management”
An idea?
An industry norm?A set of standards and practices?

5. Have you heard of Interface
Management or its practice?
A. Yes
B. No
0% 0%

6. Does your knowledge of IM
align with that of your clients,partners, contractors, and/orcompetitors?
0%
A. Yes
B. NoC. Not Sure

7. Does your company employ
formal Interface Managementpractices and procedures?
0%
0%0%A. Yes
B. NoC. Not Sure

8. What is “Interface Management”
“Interface Management is the management
of communications, relationships, anddeliverables among two or more interfacestakeholders”
CH Research Team 302, 2014

9. Types of Interfaces
Soft Interface: Exchange of
information between deliveryteams or between delivery teamand external party or languageand cultural aspects.
Interface Point at Flanged Joint
Interface Stakeholder B
Interface Stakeholder A
relationship between two or more
components or systems.
Hard Interface: Physical

10. Interface Management Hierarchy
Owner
Contractor
Contract
Battery LimitUtility Tie-Ins
Physical
Boundary
Location
Data
Payment
FEED DocScope
Insurance
Certs
Reporting
MOMs, Daily Reports,
Transmittals

11. Network of Interface Stakeholders
interface Stakeholders
Interface Points (IPs)
21 IPs
5 IPs
32 IPs
18 IPs
10 IPs
12 IPs
10 IPs
13 IPs
8 IPs
Thickness of edges is associated with number of IPs between interface stakeholders.

12. What is “Interface Management”
“Interface Management is the
management of communications,relationships, and deliverablesamong two or more interfacestakeholders”
CH Research Team 302, 2014

13. Why Interface Management?
“What has happened in the industry
to necessitate IM?”

14. Why IM?
Dimensions of Complexity
- Geographic spread of execution centers- Level of advanced technologies- Numbers of stakeholders or project participants- Project delivery methods- Fast-tracked projects
Risk Management
- Each interface represents a potential risk
Level of
Complexity
Medium
Low

15. Do your projects mostly
involve a simple relationshipbetween two parties, ORmultiple parties with varyinglevels of interest/impact onproject outcome?
o%
0%
A. Simple
B. Not Simple
A.
B.

16. Do you expect level of
complexity on your projectsto increase or decreaseover next 10 years?
A. Increase
B. DecreaseC. Stay the Same
0%
0% 0%
A,
B,

17. Less or Least Complex - Project Team Co-located

18. A Little More Complex - Same Team, Different Offices
Three Interface Stakeholders
Three Communication Channels
: Fragmented information communicated via telecommunication
(phone, email, etc.)

19. More Complex - Add One More Stakeholder
Four Interface Stakeholders
Six Communication Channels

20. Even More Complex - Add Two More Stakeholders
Six Interface Stakeholders
15 Communication Channels, Multiple Interface Points per Channel

21. What If...?
Structural Engineer
Owner
Electrical Engineer
-
Lead Engineer
Mechanical Engineer
15 Communication Channels

22. Increasing Complexity Due to Compressed Schedule
Linear Project Schedule
FEP
Desig Commissioningr
& Startup (C&S)
Construction
Operation
FEP
DesiConstructionC&S
Compressed Project Schedule
Operation

23. Have multiple locations,
languages, or culturaldifferences affectedcomplexity of yourprojects?
0%
A. Yes
B. No
A.
B.

24. On average, how many
execution locations areinvolved in your projects?
A. Less than 5
B. 5-10C. More than 1 0
0%
0%0%

25. Darlington Nuclear Generating Station
four-units /net output of 3,512 megawatts (MW J
Ontario Hydro - Owner (Toronto)
Ontario Hydro (Construction)
Atomic Energy of Canada - Reactor
Design (Mississauga)
Ontario Hydro - Design/Engineering
Management (Toronto)
ABB - Turbine/Generator Supply
(Scarborough)

26. Globally Dispersed Project Execution
l
90’N
-NPC
-60
p* -30 ’N
Module Fabrication -NT
5 si)
Engineering
(ingenierie)
Engineering
-is*s
-ST
-30
Fabrication
(fabricagao)
-45*$
■60*5
SPC
■H* I
1
1JLJIHooted information communicated via telecommunication (phone, email, etc.)
18<V% 150°W 120°W 90°W 60°W 30°W 0° 30°E 60
&
E 90 *E 120°E 150°E 180°E

27. What complexity factor
most warrants FORMALIM practices?
A. Multiple geographic locations
B. New or advanced technologiesC. Multiple owners, contractors,
and/or sub-contractors
D. New geographic locationE. Fast track schedule
o%
0% o%o%
A,
B, D.

28. Which of these is the best
means to communicatecritical interface informationwith another stakeholder?
A. Fax
B. Phone callC. Meeting where both took notesD. Email exchange
o% o% o% o% o%
A.
B.C.D.E.
E. Written agreement in standard form

29. i_ cotAfuexrri
Complexity Curve
Urr nwcwcy

30. Formal Interface Management
Interface Management Personnel
IM Procedures & Practices Standardized Interface Agreement Forms IM Specific Software

31. IM - An Emerging Project Management Discipline
Project Management: 1950s
Project Controls: 1960sQuality Management: 1970sRisk Management: 1980sIM: 2000s

32. Research Methodology
Literature
Review
W Focus
■J Group
Questionnaire Pi Pilot Pi Structured Pi Data Pi Tools &
Development M Survey M Interview M Analysis M Guide
Literature Review
- Previous CH reports, Interface Management in construction & other disciplines. Structured Interview (facilitated with Survey Questionnaire)- Use of face-to-face or phone interviews- Total 46 Projects (representing over $150 Billion in CAPEX)

33. IM Formality and Project Size
□ Informal IM ■ Formal IM
# of Projects
—L —L
o ro co o N>
10
<$500M
$500-$1B $5B-$10B>$10BS1B-$5B
Project Dollar Value
Formal IM more prevalent in projects of higher $ value

34. IM Formality and Project Delivery Strategy
□ Informal IM ■ Formal IM
# of Projects
-*■ to to
O O1 O U1 O U1
18
10
DBB
DBEPCMEPCOthers
Project Delivery Strategies
EPC & EPCM most common delivery strategies with Formal IM

35. IM Formality among Interface Stakeholders
□ Informal IM ■ Formal IM14
10
1-5
5-15>15
# of Interface Stakeholders
IM is more prevalent on projects with more stakeholders

36. Project Characteristics Correlation
with IM Implementation
Project Size
(0.56)
# Interface Stakeholders
(0.33)
Correlation
# JVs/Owners
(0.24)
Locations
k(0.14)
Ml
<<

37. IM Implementation vs. Project Phase
Detailed
Scope
Sequential Project Phasing
Commiss-
ioning &Start-up
Construc-
tion
12%
Concept
Design OperationFeasibility
Feasibility
Detailed
Scope
88% Concept
DesignConstructionCommissioning & Start-upOperation
Parallel Project PhasingStart IM at Concept and Detailed Scope Phase

38. IM Implementation vs. Project Cost Growth
Formal IM Projects Had Lower Mean of Cost Growth &
Less Standard Deviation
2.00
Mean: 0.04
1 50
p=0.25
Cost Growth
1 00
1 6 4
50
oo
Mean: 0.18
Standard Deviation: 0.38
Standard Deviation: 0.16
-.50
Informal IM (n=27)
Formal IM <n=10)

39. Globally Dispersed Project Execution
L
90
,J
N
-75 *N
-NPC
-60 *N
Ingenierie
(Engineering)
-30 *N
-NT
(Module Fabrication -o*
3rfJNifa|<£l
(Engineering) - J.
Construction Site
-45 *N
-15 *S
-ST
-30*3
Fabrica?ao
(Fabrication)
-45*3
-60*3
-SPC
-75 *3
'90*3
180 *E
30 60 *E 90 °E 120 °E 150 °E150 °W 120 °W 90 60 °W 30 °W 0

40. Formal Interface Management
Interface Management Personnel
IM Procedures & Practices Standardized Interface Agreement Forms IM Specific Software

41. Tools Developed by RT 302
Interface Management Implementation Guide (IMIGe)
- Project Interface Risk-Impact (PIRI) Matrix- Interface Complexity Assessment Tool (ICAT)- IM Maturity Tool- IM Implementation Roadmap

42. PIRI Matrix
LOW MEDIUM HlGh
3MPLEXITY RISK
HIGH
MORE FORMAL IM MOST FOfd
literfacc Mnnagci

interlace hfard
At SpttadBhrW*
o
IM spnatm
W Commercial Software

IM Ccmmeicial S
Integrate wf ScbecMe

integrate Set
Inlegrale w> Charge Mtrrfl

Integrate w.‘ Chant
Integrate w
1
Risk Mgmt

Integrate w Risk
FORMAL IM
MORE FOR
Interface Mgi
*interface Mr
■w spreadsheet
>
IM Spreads!!
W Ccimrwo# Sottwfirrj
oIM Commercial 5
Inteyriite w' SctedJa
MEHJtetew.' SC/
Inteqiale w- Charge kVnfl
Integrate Chant
Integrate w' Risk Mgmt
3
Integrate w
1
Risk
FORMAL IM
interface Manager

IM SpreadSheel
O
IM Commercial Software
Integrate w
r
Schedule
integrate w,
1
Change Mgrrt
Integrate wr Rtsk Mgnl
INFORMAL IM
MOST FORMAL IM
Interface Manager

IM Spreadsheet
(2
IM Commercial Software

Integrate w/ Schedule

Integrate w/ Change Mgmt

Integrate w/ Risk Mgmt

□
HIGH
nlerfarft Mgi
IM Spi endsheelGomnwraal Scflwant
Interface Manger
IM SpreadsheetIM Commercial SoftwareIntegrate w/ ScheduleIntegrate w/ Change MgmtIntegrate w Risk MgmtLOW
nlegiate w Stfiedute
■grate w' Change Mqn'lteqrate w’Risk Moml
LOW
LEAST FORMAL IM
INFORMAL IM
0
Interface Manager
O
interlace Manager
»
U Speadsheei
»
IM Spreadsheel
»
0
H Gonimercjai Software
O
IM n fjnmarcial Software
O
0
integrate w,' Schetttie
O
Megrare w sofieduie

0
Ntgrafa wi chanoeMann
&
integrate w Change Mgmt

0
Heonte w/ Risk Munn kileurttie w Risk Mgrri
Interface Manger
IM SpreadsheelCommercial Softwarertegrate uw SciteAfeflrataw.'CMmosMortitteyttee w- Risk MsjrtlLOW
MEDIUMHIGH
PROJECT / BUSINESS IMPACT

43. * Interactive Spreadsheet
ICAT*
Supporting Question for Interface Influencing Factor
Interface
Weighting
Rating
Score
1
Have these organizations interfaced before? 10%00.00
2
How many of the individuals involved have interfaced
before?
5%
10.05
3
Are both organizations comfortable with the
communication language?
5%
10.05
4
Do individuals have different cultural backgrounds? 5%20.10
5
How many hours difference in geographical time zones
between locations?
4%
20.08

44. Interface Management Implementation Guide (IMIGe)
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 ; Executive Summary 3
Chapter 2 : Introduction 4Chapter3 : What Is Interface Management? 9Chapter 4 How Do You Determine the Appropriate Level of IM Implementation for Your
Project and/or Organization? __ _____ __ _______ _ _____ __ 15
Chapter 5 : What Are the Requirements for Each Maturity and Implementation Level? 25Chapter 6 : How Do We Implement IM? 34Chapter? : Concluding Remarks.. . . .42Chapters : References 43Chapters : Appendices .....45

45. IMIGe
Interlace Slafr*-
Interlat* Pnml
Irsertett
’effect
Wtrfacp
Apee rt 'IAi
twfact
Ajfwment (IAi
Inter'Kfi
Ag-eemeifii*
1
Interlace Adtefi
Item |IAI},„
■' iTHfaceCoiiro
Dxumert'ikaRing

46. Summary of Tools Developed by RT 302
* Interface Management Implementation Guide (IMIGe)
- Project Interface Risk-Impact (PIRI) Matrix- Interface Complexity Assessment Tool (ICAT)- IM Maturity Tool- IM Implementation Roadmap

47. Learning Objectives
Learning about Interface Management (IM)
- What is Interface Management?- Why IM?- What level of IM is appropriate for a project or organization?
Understanding research findings
Introducing available IM products and tools

48. What’s in It for Me?
Industry established and recognized common language
Clearer understanding of level of IM required Better IM likely relates to better project cost performance Earlier recognition of risks to facilitate mitigation Effective products and tools for immediate use

49. Wrapping Up
RT 302’s exciting research on IM is only “the beginning”
More complex projects require more formal IM Cost growth likely improves with formal IM All of our tools are now available from CH as your guide to IM

50. National Museum of African American History and Culture

51. Panel Discussion

52. Panel Experts for Audience Q&A
Carl Haas - University of Waterloo
Todd LaBar - Air Products (RT 302 Vice Chair) SangHyun Lee - University of Michigan Lynn Wheatcraft - Dresser-Rand (RT 302 Chair) Menzies Wilson - Smithsonian Institution