Benchmarking Productivity Metrics

1. Benchmarking Productivity Metrics Annual Conference Keystone, Colorado

2. Session Participants Moderator • Dave Hile – Watkins Engineers & Constructors Panelists • Jimmy Slaughter - S&B Engineers and Constructors • Paul Woldy – ChevronTexaco Corporation • Ken Walsh - Arizona State University • Kent Goddard – Solutia • Steve Thomas – CII

3. Goals of this Session • Provide an Update on the CII Benchmarking Productivity Metrics effort • Illustrate proposed uses of the productivity metrics • Discuss the alignment of efforts between the CII Benchmarking initiative and Project Team 192, Engineering Productivity Measures research effort

4. First CII Annual MeetingKeystone, ColoradoAugust 7-8, 1985AGENDA

5. 8.00 Industry* CII 6.79 6.80 7.00 6.10 5.80 5.50 5.50 6.00 4.90 4.50 5.00 4.20 4.40 4.10 Estimated* 4.00 4.00 3.44 Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate 3.00 1.90 1.45 1.55 2.00 1.14 0.81 0.55 0.45 0.63 1.00 0.41 0.26 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.00 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 325 413 477 497 527 613 644 888 591 763 1,122 936 1,115 Year and Work-hours (MM) What Can Be Accomplished Owner & Contractor Safety Performance

6. What Are We Doing? • Engineering Productivity • Concrete • Structural Steel • Piping • Instrumentation • Equipment • Electrical Construction Productivity • Concrete • Structural Steel • Piping • Instrumentation • Equipment • Electrical • Insulation

7. Construction Productivity - Concrete

8. Engineering Productivity - Concrete

9. Productivity Metrics Milestones

10. How to Use the Metrics

11. Benchmarking ROADMAP Determine What to Benchmark Define the Metrics Identify Reasons for Deficiencies Develop Data Collection Methodology Develop Action Plan Integrate Goals into Business Practices Collect Data Identify Performance Gap Improvement?

12. Identify Performance Gap • Collect data and calculate raw productivity → Norms: wk-hrs/installed quantity • Calculate expected productivity → Regression model(s) • Assess the gap

13. 16 14 12 Productivity Gap 10 Hrs/CY 8 Database Values 6 Your Project Expected Productivity 4 -10 -5 0 5 10 Project Environment Index Determining the Performance Gap (Notional Data) Concrete Foundations 21-50 CY

14. Benchmarking ROADMAP Determine What to Benchmark Define the Metrics Identify Reasons for Deficiencies Develop Data Collection Methodology Develop Action Plan Integrate Goals into Business Practices Collect Data Identify Performance Gap Improvement?

15. Identify Reasons for Deficiencies • Perform Self-assessment: Gap analysis & Key reports • Review References: CII Products On-line

16. Other Uses for the Data: Wk-hr Gain/Loss

17. Other Uses: Potential Project Opportunity

18. ROADMAP Determine What to Benchmark Define the Metrics Identify Reasons for Deficiencies Develop Data Collection Methodology Develop Action Plan Integrate Goals into Business Practices Collect Data Identify Performance Gap Improvement?

19. Why Measure Productivity? • Industry • Competitiveness • Improvements • Profits

20. How to Get Started? • http://cii-benchmarking.org • Benchmarking Training • Input • Compare My Project • Improve

21. Challenges • Roadmap Steps • Education • Management Buy-In

22. ROADMAP Determine What to Benchmark Define the Metrics Identify Reasons for Deficiencies Develop Data Collection Methodology Develop Action Plan Integrate Goals into Business Practices Collect Data Identify Performance Gap Improvement?

23. Challenges • Roadmap Steps • Education • Management Buy-In

24. Notional Data Future

25. Where Will You Be in Ten Years? Productivity Performance 16 14 Industry 12 10 8 Construction Productivity Wk-Hrs/Qty 6 CII 4 2 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 925 875 1012 985 1010 1045 1003 1117 1092 1101 1057 1111 Year andWork-hours (MM) Notional Data

26. Summary Update on CII Benchmarking Productivity Metrics • Construction & Engineering Metrics have been developed • We are collecting data on construction metrics now • Data collection for engineering metrics will begin by August 31st • If you need the metrics, you need to submit data!

27. Summary Proposed Uses for the Metrics • Gap analysis • Identify work-hour gains/losses • Provide check on estimating system • Trend analysis – are you improving?

28. Summary Alignment between CII Benchmarking & PT192 • BM&M and PT192 are working together to coordinate efforts • Differences, overlaps, and similarities between both groups have been identified • Both efforts will share data and results where possible on an ongoing basis • Both efforts need data to succeed

29. You Need To Benchmark and Support PT 192!

30. PT 192 Engineering Productivity Measurement

31. You Need To Benchmark and Support PT 192!

32. Comparison of BM&M and PT 192 Engineering Productivity Efforts “Similar but Different and Complimentary”

33. Actions to Align BM&M and PT192 • Share PT192 workshop results with BM&M. - Done • Design “General Project Information” portion of PT192 data collection form to avoid redundancy with BM&M questionnaire. - Done • PT192 participation on BM&M’s Implementation Session at 2002 Annual Conference. - Today • Share team members to maintain integration. - In progress • Share data. - Will begin as data is received • Joint BM&M / PT192 meeting to share results. - 11/15/02 • Report to CII Executive Committee. - Fall 2002

34. You Need To Benchmark and Support PT 192!