1. Benchmarking: The Journey to Improvement
Benchmarking & Metrics Committee
Dave Hile
Watkins Engineers and Constructors
Good morning, its my pleasure to be here again this year to tell you about the exciting things happening in the Benchmarking & Metrics program.
CII Annual Conference 2001

2. When opportunity knocks, don’t be mild mannered..
CII
Bureau of Benchmarking & Metrics
When opportunity knocks, don’t be mild mannered..
Don’t be mild mannered about the opportunity that CII’s Benchmarking and Metrics program provides your company. Be a Supermetrics man.

3. What gets measured - gets improved
Be your Companies Super Metrics Man.
Use the Benchmarking and Metrics Program at CII to:
Set new standards, be the Best in class, make sure your company continually ranks in the 1st quartile.
Remember “What Gets Measured Gets Improved”
Get involved in CII’s Benchmarking Program.

4. BM&M Committee – Owners
Tato, John U.S. Department of State, Co-Chair
Beer, Karen E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
Chapman, Robert National Inst. of Standards & Tech. (NIST)
Flansburg, Rick Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Green, Charles Aramco Services Company
Gretzinger, Carl General Motors Corporation
Kass, Howard National Aeronautics & Space Admin.
Norko, Walt U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Stickel, Dave The Procter & Gamble Company
Ott, Rich Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Rosas, George Celanese Chemicals Americas
Taylor, Paul CITGO Petroleum Corporation
Winninger, Chuck Praxair
The Benchmarking & Metrics program began in Unlike a research team that sunsets after the publish their findings the Benchamrking and Metrics program continues to collect data and provide feedback back to the member companies that participate in the program.
In addition information is shared with research and implementation.
This chart represents the Owners that are participating in the program.

5. BM&M Committee – Contractors
Hile, David Watkins Engineers & Constructors Inc., Co-Chair
Herrington, Robert Jacobs
Loid, Kirby Washington Group International, Inc.
Mills, Michael Brown & Root Energy Services
Speed, Sam Rust Constructors
Ogletree, Robert BE&K Engineering Company
Sachs, Jerel Kellogg Brown & Root
Slaughter, James S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd.
Ex-Officio
Thomas, Steve Construction Industry Institute
Williams, Ivor European Construction Institute
This chart shows the contractors that are participating in the program.
As the CoChair I want to thank the members of the committee and the staff at CII for there hard work toward a fantastic program.

6. Plenary Presentation Background Recent Activities Findings
Benchmarking User Awards
Implementation Sessions
What I will do this morning in my presentation is provide you with a :
Background of our objectives for the Benchmarking and Metrics program.
Recent program activities and accomplishments.
Share with you some of the data finings.
Announce the winners of this years Benchmarking and Metrics Users Award.
We will be conducting two implementation sessions:
Benchmarking and Metrics
Productivity Metrics

7. CII Benchmarking Objectives
Establish common metric definitions
Establish performance & best practice use norms
Determine the value of best practices
Provide member companies a basis for self-analysis
Support CII Research and Implementation activities through feedback
The objectives of the Benchmarking Program are:
Common metric definitions had to be developed that were acceptable by all member companies.
Performance and Best Practice use norms had to be established.
The value of best Practices had to be developed.
Another objective our program is to provide feedback and support to CII research and implementation.

8. Participants & Functions
Company Benchmarking Associate
Company trained knowledge resource for CII Benchmarking
Facilitates data collection
Validates data submitted
Committee
Policy, procedure, & oversight
Industry relevance & perspective
Staff
Database management, administration, & security
Analysis & reporting
Coordination
Participants & Functions:
We asked that each company assign a Benchmarking Associate that attends the CII benchmarking training program that is offered at a minimum of 2 times per year. In addition the BM & M associate facilitates and validates data.
The BM & M committee is responsible for program policy, procedure and the oversight of the program goals. The program must also provide a perspective of industry relevance.
The CII staff is responsible for maintaining a confidential database. Perform analysis and reporting and coordinate all program activities.

9. Recent Accomplishments
Continued Web development
Increased focus on use of tools & data
Added new cost, schedule and practice use metrics
Expanded focus to include small projects
Added more user choices for benchmarking
Developed construction productivity metrics
Developed Benchmarking Code of Conduct
This past year has been a busy one and much has been accomplished:
The web has presented us many mew opportunities to improve both data collection and reporting. We released our 2nd version of the web questionnaire with improved usability features and built in error trapping for greater accuracy
We reoriented our training to focus more time on use of the tools
We added new cost & schedule metrics to measure absolute deviations from targets and new practice use metrics to measure quality management and design effectiveness
We lowered our project size threshold to 250K to give you a means of benchmarking virtually all of your projects. Now we are relooking our metrics to accommodate the smaller projects.
We have developed the web system so you can select data slices more relevant to you for benchmarking.
Online links are now offered from project Key Reports so that you can directly access CII products that can help you improve project performance
One year ago we announced workshops to begin the development of productivity metrics. This year we have not only established definitions for 7 categories of construction productivity metrics, we have conducted a pilot data collection effort to validate these definitions and our questionnaire. We expect this fall to collect sufficient data to start publishing norms for these metrics.

10. CII Benchmarking Code of Conduct
Purpose:
to guide Committee, staff, and participant activities
to promote CII BM&M acceptance
to enhance the professionalism and overall effectiveness of the program
Addresses:
principles of conduct
confidentiality
use of data
After much consideration and at the request of the executive committee we have established a Benchmarking Code of Conduct.
The purpose is to provide a guide for the Committee, staff and participants activities. Promote acceptance of the BM&M program and to enhance the professionalism and effectiveness of the program.
The Code addresses issues surrounding the principles of conduct, confidentiality and the use of the data from participating companies.

11. The Database

12. CII BM&M Database Approximately 1000 projects Worth $52 billion
International
231
Approximately projects
Worth $52 billion
Domestic
764
Member companies have responded well to program enhancements:
Our database has grown to almost 1000 projects valued at more than $52 Billion.

13. Owner/Contractor Participation
465
Owner
530
All the while continuing to maintain a strong balance of owner and contractor projects.

14. Industry Groups 350 300 250 Number of Projects 200 150 100 50
346
300
295
250
Owner
Contractor
200
Number of Projects
150
130
While the database continues to be predominantly Heavy Industrial, progress has been made in attracting projects from the other industry groups as well.
100 50 63 42 34 38 47
Buildings
Heavy
Infrastructure
Light
Industrial
Industrial

15. Top 10 Project Types Chemical Mfgr. 227 22.8 Oil Refining 160 16.1
Count Percent
Chemical Mfgr
Oil Refining
Electrical (Generating)
Pulp and Paper
Lowrise Office
Metals Refining/Processing
Foods
Oil Exploration/Production
Natural Gas Processing
Water/Wastewater
Soon we expect to add greater flexibility to our reports to permit direct comparison below industry groups to particular project types.
This slide shows the top 10 project types in the database for benchmarking.

16. Project Locations 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
EQUATOR
TROPIC OF CANCER
TROPIC OF CAPRICORN
TROP OF CAPRICORN
AUSTRALIA
A S I A
A F R I C A
E U R O P E
GREENLAND
NORTH
AMERICA
ANTARCTICA
SOUTH
P A C I F I C
O C E A N
I N D I A N
PACIFIC
OCEAN
A T L A N T I C 38 69 26 1 3 9
768
129 14 41 2
We continue to expand the database internationally as well. Now more than 10 percent of the projects are in Europe and benchmarking agreements with other international companies are permitting us to expand within the Middle East and Asia too.

17. Performance Metrics Cost Schedule Safety Changes Rework
This chart provides a quick look at the categories of performance metrics that we publish.
There are many metrics within each category, some tailored for owners and some to contractors. Metrics now measure deviations from targets as well as growth.

18. Project Cost Performance – Owners
0.01
-0.01
Project Cost Growth
-0.02
-0.03
We now have sufficient data to perform trend analyses.
While there is much variability in the data (as expected), as an organization we are clearly getting better.
Here the trend in cost performance shows that since the earlier days of the program we have made significant progress and now on average report negative cost growth for owner heavy industrial projects.
-0.04
-0.05
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

19. Current Practices Surveyed
Practice Use Metrics
Current Practices Surveyed
Pre-Project Planning
Constructability
Team Building
Zero Accidents
Change Management
Materials Management
Quality Management
Design Effectiveness
The following Best Practices are surveyed through our questionnaire and norms for use and value of use are routinely published

20. Practice Use Metric Norms
Other Practices/Metrics
Planning for Start-up
Design/Info Technology
PDRI – Project Definition Rating Index
Buildings
Industrial
Percent Design Complete
at authorization
at construction start
Other tools and metrics are included in the questionnaire so that we can establish norms for their use and continue to assess their value as well.

21. The Value of Practice Use Average Contractor Heavy Industrial Project
High Impact
Team Building
Project Change Management
Pre-Project Planning
Schedule Reduction
Design/Information Technology
Member companies have finite resources and we must be careful in applying these to ensure that we use those practices that provide the greatest benefit. New reports and tools help us to identify the practices of greatest value to us.
Safety
Low Impact
Constructability
Low Impact
High Impact
Cost Savings

22. Safety Benefits Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incident Rate
Respondent: Owner
Industry Group: Heavy Industrial
Average Project Cost: $37MM
Average Craft Worhour: 347K
4th Quartile
3rd Quartile
2nd Quartile
1st Quartile
7.0
5.755
6.0
5.0
Recordable Incident Rate
Potential for Improvement
4.106
4.0
2.950
3.120
2.905
3.0
2.552
Best Practices Work! This chart from our safety data clearly shows that projects that report greater use of the Zero Accidents Best Practice, can expect better safety performance.
2.0
1.385
1.015
Mean
1.0
Median
0.0
Low
High
Safety Practice Use

23. Productivity Metrics
If we can improve cost, schedule and safety performance, we can improve productivity as well. Many said that it was too hard to measure.
Last year, however, we initiated the development of productivity metrics. This effort has proceeded on a fast-track with a very active group working with the Benchmarking organization.

24. Productivity Metrics Participation
ABB Lummus Global
Anheuser-Busch
Aramco Services
BE&K Engineering
BMW Constructors
CDI Engineering
Cherne Contracting
Conoco
Day & Zimmermann
Dow Chemical
Fluor Daniel
J. E. Merit Constructors
Jacobs
JEMCI, Jacobs Engineering
Kvaerner
NAVFAC Engineering Command
Phillips Petroleum
Praxair
Rohm and Haas
Rust Constructors
S&B
Texaco
Texaco Power & Gasification
Watkins
Zachry Construction
Shown here are the companies that have spearheaded (championed) the cause.
As you can see, there are some very prominent companies, both owner & contractor, within the industry.

25. Productivity Metric Milestones
Jun 2000 Establish Path Forward
Jul 2000 Identify & Discuss Issues Develop Work Plan & Resource Teams
Sep 2000 Develop Preliminary Construction Metric Definitions
Nov 2000 Review Construction Metric Definitions Develop Engineering Metric Categories
Feb 2001 Finalized Construction Metric Definitions
Jun 2001 Finalized Construction Metric Questionnaire
Jun 2001 Initiated Pilot Data Collection
I can’t provide a lot of the details here, but this slide lists some of the milestones achieved by this group.
We moved from conceptual planning to data collection within a year, mostly based on the volunteer efforts of member companies.

26. Productivity Metric Categories
Piping
Insulation
Instrumentation
Equipment
Electrical & devices
Structural steel
Concrete
We have developed construction productivity metrics for the 7 categories of metrics shown here.
As you can imagine, we had to achieve consensus from many companies for many related issues such as the treatment of indirects.

27. Pilot Test Results
Pilot test results have just come in and we are prepared to share some of these with you in our Implementation Session later this morning.

28. Benchmarking User Forum
Second Annual Forum – April 5
Participation
ATOFINA Chemicals
Aramco Services
BE&K
Bethlehem Steel
Black & Veatch
Boeing Company
CDI Engineering
CITGO Petroleum
Celanese
Day & Zimmermann Int’l
Dofasco
General Motors
Huntsman
JE Merit Constructors
Naval Facilities Engr Command
Ontario Power Generation
PSEG Energy Technologies
Parsons Energy & Chem Group
Rust Constructor
SMS Demag
Texaco Power & Gasification
U.S. Department of State
H. B. Zachry Company
I wanted to take a minute to tell you about our Benchmarking Forum we held in April. This was our 2nd Annual Forum. It was held in Houston on April 5th and through all feedback was very successful. As you can see attendance was outstanding.

29. Benchmarking User Forum
Second Annual Forum – April 5
Participation
Structure
Owner/Contractor Presentations
Breakouts
We used breakout groups to allow participants to discuss some of the barriers to effective benchmarking.

30. Benchmarking User Award
Owner
General Motors Corp.
Contractor
BE&K, Inc.
Best application of benchmarking for project improvement
Contributions to the BM&M program through active participation

31. Path Forward Update/add new practice use metrics.
Increase small projects analysis.
Develop more user choices for benchmarking.
Add online links to products.
Publish productivity metrics norms.
Develop engineering productivity metrics.
Our Path forward will be to:
We will continue to update and add new practices and metrics based on member company feedback.
We nee to increase small project analysis.
Develop more user choices for Benchmarking.
Develop online links to other CII products.
Publish construction productivity metrics norms.
Continue focus on developing engineering productivity metrics.

32. BM&M Implementation Sessions
1. Enhance Project Success through Continuous Benchmarking
Moderator John Tato – U.S. State Department
2. Productivity Metrics
Moderators Dave Hile – Watkins Engineers & Constructors
Jimmy Slaughter – S&B Engineers & Constructors
Implementation Sessions!!!
Enhance Project success through Continuous Benchmarking today from 3:30 in the Yerba Buena Ballroom and again tomorrow at 7:30 in the Yerba Buena Ballroom.
Productivity Metrics today at 10:20 in the Yerba Buena Ballroom Salons and again this afternoon at 12:30 in the Yerba Buena Ballroom, Salons 10-12
Also to learn more about the Benchmarking and Metrics program and the Online Questionnaire stop by the product display room located in

33. Bid Reject: I wish I had been Benchmarking… Bid Submittal REJECTED
As I said earlier in my presentation don’t be mild mannered.
Bid
Submittal

34. Be a Super Metrics Man, act now and reach new heights, Improve your companies performance.
Thank you and have a Super Conference.