CII Benchmarking and Metrics Implementation Session Don’t Gamble with Your Project’s Performance Harold Helland, Abbott Bob Herrington, Jacobs Stephen Mulva, CII

Agenda Opening Remarks –Danny Scott, BE&K / KBR, Moderator Executive Dashboard and Data Mining –Harold Helland, Abbott CII NextGen Benchmarking System –Bob Herrington, Jacobs CII Productivity Studies –Stephen Mulva, CII Questions

3 Can A Performance Culture Improve Performance?

Harold Helland Abbott

History Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Metrics Program –Began in 2004, 4 Companies –Currently in 5 th Round, 10 Companies –167 Projects Entered CII Data Mining (Chart-O-Rama V.2) Executive Dashboard –Available to Pharma / Biotech Companies –Available to CII Members in 2010

6 Chart-o-Rama (Step 1)

7 Chart-o-Rama (Step 2)

8 Chart-o-Rama (Step 3)

9 Chart-o-Rama (Step 4)

10 Chart-o-Rama (Step 5)

11 Executive Dashboard Navigation (Step 1)

12 Dashboard – Donut Chart View (Bulk) – (Step 2A)

13 Dashboard – Donut Chart View (Secondary) – (Step 2B)

14 Dashboard – Donut Chart View (Lab) – (Step 2C)

15 Dashboard – Donut Chart View (overall) – (Step 3)

16 Dashboard – Quartile Chart View (Overall) – (Step 4)

Bob Herrington Jacobs

CII NextGen Benchmarking System Tier 1 (80% less questions), Tier 2, Tier 3 Questionnaire Internal (Business Unit, Product Line) Benchmarks Instant Feedback with Monthly Quartile Updates Automated Data Entry (XML) Worldwide University Benchmarking Labs CII Summer Intern Program

CII NextGen Benchmarking System Benchmarking Manager Benchmarking Associate Project Manager 3 Levels –Geographic (Other) 2 Product Line Levels 2 Business Unit Levels

NextGen System Internal Benchmarking Example

Strategic Fit of NextGen System (in Jacobs)

Automated Data Entry (via XML)

NextGen System & XML Benchmarking Jacobs (Member) database for storing all project/process metrics Secure, XML-based portal for project benchmarking Pilot service developed by Jacobs and CII in 2008 Launch as a service to CII membership in 2009 Project Data & Performance Results CII Database Member Database

Jacobs Performance Management System

Stephen Mulva CII

26 CII Project-Level Productivity Electrical Engineering Productivity Instrumentation Engr. Productivity Concrete Engineering Productivity Structural Steel Engr. Productivity Piping Engineering Productivity Equipment Engr. Productivity Instrumentation Field Productivity Structural Steel Field Productivity Scaffolding Field Productivity Equipment Field Productivity Insulation Field Productivity Electrical Field Productivity Concrete Field Productivity Piping Field Productivity DISCIPLINE-LEVEL PRODUCTIVITY ENGINEERING PRODUCTIVITY CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTIVITY

27 Project-Level Productivity Example Good Poor 4Q4Q 3Q3Q 2Q2Q 1Q1Q 11% Improvement (4 th to 3 rd Quartile) 26% Improvement (4 th to 1 st Quartile)

Recent CII Productivity Study Measuring Interoperability and Best Practices Impacts on Capital Project Productivity –Sponsored by U.S. Department of Commerce –National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Report Available from CII –BMM107-11

Best Practice (BP) Questionnaire Sample To what extent did the engineering deliverables reflect the recommendations for constructability from construction personnel? Not at All Variable, Partial FullyDon’t Know ◘◘◘◘◘◘◘◘ Please indicate which statement best describes the role of a constructability coordinator on this project ◘ There was no constructability coordinator for this project ◘ Part time at most; very limited responsibilities ◘ Full or part time with limited responsibilities ◘ Full time and played a major constructability role on this project ◘ Don’t Know

Technology Use and Integration (TUI) Questionnaire Sample Level of Work Task Automation Integration with Other Functions, Project Management Systems and/or Corporate Systems Integration with Other Project Stakeholders Detail Design12345 N/A or UNK N/A or UNK N/A or UNK Visual Survey Technologies Detailed Engineering and Specifications Automated Design Platform (e.g., 3D) Bill of Material (BOM) Equipment Specification Design Transfer (Procurement, Vendors, & Construction)

Productivity and Rework Mean Values Productivity: $TIC/WH Rework: Direct Cost of Field Rework Construction Phase Cost Shading indicates best performance within category * Statistical warning indicator. See Appendix A. 1 Metric definitions are provided in Appendix B. 2 All rework cost factor values shown in this table are percentage.

Productivity Trend ($TIC/WH)

Partnering Front End Planning Alignment Internal Integration Planning for Startup BP and TUI Interaction Effects on Productivity Bold with light shading indicates high/high quadrant shows the best performance (or highest value) and low/low quadrant shows the worst performance (or lowest value) Dark shading indicates high/high quadrant shows the best performance but low/low quadrant doesn ’ t show the worst performance

CII Productivity Measures Have Proven to be Excellent Metrics New Project-Level Metrics Increasing Use Validation of EVS?

Questions?