Case Study: Project “C”

//Case Study: Project “C”

Case Study: Project “C”

Project Overview

Workface Planning – Mid-Project Report
Toledo Ohio
Approximately $500 Million
2008

Project Summary:

WFP established by the Contractor, Owner has no experience with WFP

The following report summarizes the current reality of the Construction Contractor’s application of Workface Planning on Project – C

The basic model of Workface Planners and Workface Plans as described in the COAA model has been established and is functional on the site.

The action items generated during the November 2007 site visit have all seen progress and are in different stages of development:

Material Management is now supported by the 3D model, however, this link will require constant monitoring and occasional audits.

Progress is being manually entered for civil work and has a limited alignment for steel.

The outstanding issue here is that the piece mark numbers being entered in Delhi are not all in the model by the time the steel is erected and progressed.

The interface with QA database is still in development. – The interface with Turnover is still in development.

Pack Track is now populated with all of the current FIWP’s. Each FIWP has been identified by its schedule ID and dates, by the Project Controls department.

Beyond the action items from the November site visit, there is also an effort in motion to assign man hours from the estimate to each FIWP. This process has been trialed and is expected to be in place on all work packs in the coming weeks.

Outstanding issues noted during the site visit Jan 22-25, (as discussed during the project management review Jan 25th.)

Instrument Planner: the need for an Instrument planner has been identified.

Civil Planner: The execution of Civil workface Planning packages is not effective. The work has been identified and prepackaged but is not being sequenced as it is packaged.
Recommendation: appointing another Civil planner to dissect and align the work packs with the dynamic path of construction. (Smaller packs, 1 to 2 days).

Scaffold Planner: Scaffold erectors have been engaged providing scaffold for all trades and contractors. The need for a scaffold Workface Planner has been identified along with the development of a database to manage scaffolds.

The scaffold Workface Planner will be integrated with the Workface Planning team in the Planning tent as per their contractual obligations.

Subcontract Planners: It was agreed during the Project Management Review (Jan 25th) that the Subcontract Workface Planners should be integrated with the existing Workface Planners, in the Workface Planning tent.

Replacement for Lead Planner: Several options to fill this position are now on the table. Our target is to engage the new lead by Feb 4th to allow a two week turnover, this would allow Justin to leave the project on Feb 15th.

Quality of Workface Plans: A training session was held with the Workface Planners (Jan 24th) where the expectation was set as: The Planners must expect that every plan is 100% executable before it is released. We now expect that the planners will not release a plan if there are constraints that have not been removed and that the planners will do everything possible to remove the constraints.

Material management: material packages are being delivered incomplete and not on schedule. This is causing a major disruption to the construction execution process.

Dual monitors and SPR: It was agreed during the project management review that we should place the 3D model on each planner’s desk. This means that each planner will require a second monitor.

Pack Track: Pack Track has one further stage of development, that is to draw reports from the data that form a graph mapped against the forecast “S“ curve, This report will then be distributed each Monday to the project management team.

These actions should be completed as soon as possible and before February 15th. Other items for consideration:

Other items for consideration:

The project is now at the stage where we are functionally applying workface planning, so this is the right time to conduct our first- third-party audit. This will highlight the areas for development and give us a fresh look at the application.

A third-party audit also shows our client that we are committed to excellence.

Training: A valuable lesson learned from other projects is that the field supervisors also need some training in Workface Planning and our expectations of them around the execution of the plans. Without this, projects have struggled to get understanding and compliance from the field supervisors. Superintendents, General Foremen, and Foremen should all be introduced to the concepts of Workface Planning and our expectations of them.

Geoff Ryan
780 819 7225

By | 2017-11-01T15:02:22+00:00 September 22nd, 2017|Case Studies|Comments Off on Case Study: Project “C”

About the Author: