CII Promoting The Use AWP

Promoting the Use of
Advanced Work Packaging
Phase 1
Final Report DCC-04

CII Member Companies
Owners Contractors Service Providers

Albemarle Corporation AECOM Alvarez & Marsal
Ameren Corporation Alfred Miller Contracting Atlas RFID Solutions
American Transmission Company LLC APTIM Autodesk, Inc.
Anheuser-Busch InBev Arcadis U.S., Inc AVEVA Solutions Ltd.
Aramco Services Company AZCO INC. Bentley Systems Inc.
Architect of the Capitol Baker Concrete Construction Inc. Blue Cats
Ascend Performance Materials Barton Malow Company Command Alkon Inc.
AstraZeneca Bechtel Group, Inc. Construct-X, LLC
Cargill, Inc. Black & Veatch Continuum Advisory Group
Chevron Burns & McDonnell Dassault Systèmes SE
ConocoPhillips Chiyoda Corporation Deloitte
Consolidated Edison Company of New York CRB Design + Construction Strategies
Covestro LLC Day & Zimmermann DyCat Solutions
DTE Energy Eichleay, Inc. ePM
DuPont Emerson Group ASI
Eastman Chemical Company Fluor Corporation Hexagon Process Power & Marine
Entergy Corporation H+M Industrial EPC Hilti Corporation
ExxonMobil Corporation Hargrove Engineers + Constructors I.M.P.A.C.T.
General Electric Company Hatch iConstruct
GlaxoSmithKline Jacobs Insight-AWP Inc.
Global Infrastructure Partners JGC Corporation O3 Solutions
Honeywell International Inc. KBR Oracle USA, Inc.
Huntsman Corporation Kiewit Corporation Pathfinder, LLC
INEOS Group Holdings S. A. M&H Enterprises (Energy Services) PTAG, Inc.
Irving Oil Limited Matrix Service Company T. A. Cook Consultants Inc.
Johnson & Johnson McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. Trillium Advisory Group Ltd
Kaiser Permanente McDermott International, Inc. Valency Inc.
Koch Industries, Inc. Midwest Steel, Inc. Zurich
Los Alamos National Laboratory NPCC
LyondellBasell PCL Constructors, Inc.
Marathon Petroleum Corporation POWER Engineers, Inc.
Motiva Enterprises, LLC S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd.
National Aeronautics & Space Administration Saipem SpA
Naval Facilities Engineering Command SBM Offshore
NOVA Chemicals Corporation SNC-Lavalin Constructors Inc.
Nutrien TechnipFMC plc.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (USA), Inc.
ONEOK, Inc. Turner Industries Group LLC
Ontario Power Generation Victaulic
Petroleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras Wanzek Construction, Inc.
Petronas Wood
Phillips 66 Worley
Public Service Electric & Gas Company Zachry Group
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL)
SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
Shell Global Solutions US Inc.
Smithsonian Institution
Southern Company
TC Energy
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Dow Chemical Company
The Procter & Gamble Company
The Williams Companies, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/EL
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
U.S. General Services Administration
Zachry Corporation
Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)
Phase 1
Research Team DCC-04, Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging
Construction Industry Institute
Final Report DCC-04
March 2020
© 2020 Construction Industry Institute™
The University of Texas at Austin
CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members
are permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.
Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed, and no modifications may be made
without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies.
Volume discounts may be available.
All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member
prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.
Printed in the United States of America.

Executive Summary
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) challenged Research Team DCC-04

(RT-DCC-04) to recommend strategies for promoting the use of Advanced Work
Packaging. AWP is a CII Best Practice that promotes a disciplined process for project
planning and execution. It aims to systematically align the engineering, procurement,
and construction disciplines across the project life cycle.
In order to achieve its goal, the team conducted a survey and a series of interviews
to accomplish the following tasks:
1. Identify companies that are implementing AWP.
2. Analyze the main barriers these companies face during AWP
implementation.
3. Recommend potential solutions to overcome these barriers.
4. Find out why some companies choose not to implement AWP.
5. Uncover opportunity areas where additional research could positively affect
the use of AWP at the industry level.
The research team developed an online survey to gain a better understanding of

the current status of AWP implementation. This survey obtained 68 responses from 36
companies. It collected data about these companies’ AWP implementation journeys,
including project focus, implementation maturity level, barriers to implementation,
potential solutions to overcoming these barriers, and recommendations on how to
promote the use of AWP. Along with the survey, the team conducted 11 interviews to
gather more data on implementation challenges and critical success factors.
RT-DCC-04’s research findings indicate that AWP is being utilized globally by

projects in a wide range of sizes. Among the companies that participated in this study,
the average AWP implementation maturity level (based on the five maturity model
dimensions set out by RT-272) was 1.8 on a scale that ranges from 1.0 to 3.0, with
3.0 being the most mature (CII/COAA 2013a). RT-DCC-04’s analysis also showed
that there was greater maturity in aspects related to understanding AWP benefits,
while maturity was lower in dimensions that dealt with AWP implementation strategy,
training, and support.
iii
Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)
RT-DCC-04 also conducted a comprehensive analysis of AWP implementation

barriers. One of the findings indicated a relationship between the barriers a company
faced and its maturity level:
• Companies with higher maturity levels faced barriers related to integrating
AWP with engineering and integrating AWP procedures with existing processes.
• Companies with median maturity reported encountering barriers related to a
lack of mature resources to implement AWP and an insufficient understanding
of how to integrate AWP with existing procedures.
• Companies with lower maturity presented barriers related to recognizing the
value of AWP and understanding its concepts.
The team identified potential solutions to the main AWP implementation barriers
and also compiled its suggestions on how to promote the use of AWP. The research
findings made clear that there are ways to positively promote AWP implementation at
the industry level. The team isolated two topics that need more attention now:
1. Improving the integration of engineering and AWP implementation
2. Providing easier access to AWP case studies and implementation
resources
A second phase of this research will focus on these areas that were identified by the
team’s first phase.
iv
Contents
iii
11
17
21
33
39
43
45
47
61
63
67
71
75
79
83
87
91
95
Chapter 1
Introduction
Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) is a CII Best Practice that promotes a disciplined
process for project planning and execution. It aims to systematically align the engineering,
procurement, and construction disciplines across the project life cycle. The AWP
methodology shifts the planning focus to the early stages and is based on three main
components:
1. Construction work packages (CWPs)
2. Engineering work packages (EWPs)
3. Installation work packages (IWPs)
The logical and iterative breakdown of a project into these three deliverables provides
a framework for effective and consistent planning throughout project duration.
AWP has the potential to improve the project delivery process. Early evidence
from CII’s Research Team 272 (RT-272) indicated the following benefits of AWP
implementation, compared to traditional planning and execution processes (CII/COAA
2013a):
• Up to 25% increase in construction productivity
• Up to 10% decreases in total installed cost (TIC), with increased savings for
owners and increased profitability for contractors
• Improved schedule performance, with projects delivered on schedule
• Improved safety performance, with zero lost time accident records
• Increased quality, with reduced construction rework
• Increased predictability, in terms of cost and schedule estimates
RT-319 validated the benefits of implementing AWP. It used qualitative and

quantitative research methods that supported the case for AWP as a best practice
for the industrial construction sector (CII 2015). Even though AWP became a CII Best
Practice in 2015, its use has remained limited among companies in the downstream
and chemicals sector. Hence, this work seeks ways to promote AWP use in this sector.
1
Research Objectives
RT-DCC-04’s main goal was to promote AWP use in the downstream and chemical
sectors. To that end, the team established the following objectives:
• Identify which Downstream and Chemicals Sector Committee (DCC) member
organizations are implementing AWP.
• Identify the barriers that DCC member organizations face during their
implementation of AWP.
• Pinpoint the strategies that DCC member organizations are adopting to
overcome these barriers to successful implementation of AWP.
• Discover why some DCC member organizations choose not to implement AWP.
• Uncover opportunities related to “people,” “process,” and “technology” aspects
that can be leveraged to improve the utilization of AWP.
2
Chapter 2
Research Methodology
Overview
This chapter presents the methodology RT-DCC-04 followed to achieve its research
objectives. The team’s approach is illustrated in Figure 1.
• AWP Maturity Model

Background • Potential AWP Barriers
Review • AWP Practices and Components
Data • Survey
Collection • Interviews
• AWP Implementation Plans and Maturity Levels

Data • AWP Implementation Barriers
Analysis • Potential Solutions to Implementation Barriers
• Recommendations to Promote the Use of AWP
Report
Preparation
Figure 1. Research Methodology
Background Review
RT-DCC-04 conducted a background review to gather relevant findings from
previous studies. The team aimed to incorporate knowledge from related AWP studies
and to align with existing AWP implementation efforts. The team’s search leveraged
resources and/or findings from the following organizations:
• CII’s Downstream and Chemicals Sector Committee (DCC)
• CII’s Advanced Work Packaging Community for Business Advancement
(AWP CBA)
• CII’s Technology Committee
• Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA)
• Organizations that support the implementation of AWP (e.g., Construct-X,
Autodesk, ExxonMobil, Eastman, Bechtel, Worley, Group ASI)
• Universities that are conducting AWP-related research (e.g., University of
Alberta and The University of Texas at Austin)
3
Data Collection
The team’s approach to data collection involved a survey and interviews with
subject matter experts.
Survey
The team conducted a survey by issuing it through CII to all members of the DCC.
The survey was a self-assessment tool that an average participant took an estimated
20 minutes to complete. Created by using Qualtrics software, this survey addressed
topics that were relevant to achieving RT-DCC-04’s research objectives.
The survey was composed of four primary blocks of questions. Each block had
a different focus and gained a different perspective on the AWP program at the
respondent’s company. (The complete survey questions are presented in Appendix A.)
1. Company and respondent information

This block gathered information on the respondent and the company, including the
respondent’s job position and experience. This section asked whether the company was
implementing AWP, and upon which types of projects the company used or planned
to use AWP. If the respondent marked that the company was not implementing AWP,
the survey skipped to a question asking why this was so. If he or she indicated that
the company had implemented AWP, the survey would instead advance to questions
regarding the maturity level.
2. Maturity level
This section assessed the responding company’s maturity in AWP implementation.
Its questions were based on the maturity model matrix presented by RT-272 (CII/
COAA 2013a). It assessed the company’s AWP maturity in terms of the following five
dimensions:
• View of AWP
• AWP implementation strategy
• Work processes and deliverables
• Culture and performance metrics
• Training and support
4
2. Research Methodology
For each dimension, the survey asked the respondent to rate the company’s maturity
by assigning it to one of five levels (offering half-step levels to increase the flexibility
of possible responses):
Level 1 – The maturity of the organization is low.
Level 1.5 – The maturity of the organization is between Level 1 (above) and
Level 2 (below).
Level 2 – The maturity of the organization is median.
Level 2.5 – The maturity of the organization is between Level 2 (above) and
Level 3 (below).
Level 3 – The maturity of the organization is high.
3. Barriers and potential solutions

This section of the survey identified which barriers the company was facing and
how these barriers affected AWP implementation. Its first question was open-ended. It
asked the respondent to list the company’s main barriers to implementing AWP and to
comment on how they kept the company from using AWP. In this way, the survey could
capture whichever barriers a respondent thought of first, before any of the subsequent
questions could guide or bias the answers.
Next, this section presented multiple-choice questions. The survey offered a list of
barriers (shown in Table 1 on the following page) and asked the respondent to assign
a level of severity to each barrier:
• Major
• Moderate
• Minor
• None
• Not Applicable
If the respondent marked “major” beside a given barrier, the questionnaire would
provide a box where the respondent could write which potential solution the company
had used to overcome that specific barrier. To avoid survey fatigue, respondents were
only asked to supply these additional details for major barriers. (The number in front
of each barrier in Table 1 is a reference number; in no way does it rank the barrier.)
After this section, the survey offered two questions to support the other CII research
teams contemporaneously working on AWP topics, Research Teams 364 and 365.
These questions addressed barriers related to the integration of AWP with procurement
and supply chain management, and to its integration with commissioning and startup.
5
Table 1. AWP Implementation Barriers
1. Lack of buy-in 28. Inconsistency in AWP 53. Transition from construction by

2. Lack of AWP champion/leadership implementation due to lack of area to commissioning by system
3. Lack of clear understanding of structured process 54. AWP program is not owner-
AWP methodology and processes 29. Need (or perceived need) for driven
4. Expectation of limited (or no) additional project team members 55. Lack of financial incentives to
benefits to company from AWP for AWP improve execution efficiency
5. Cost to implement 30. “Silos” among project team
6. Company not interested in groups limit integration 56a. Internal push-back from upper
implementing AWP 31. Too many unknowns to management
7. Awaiting more industry AWP effectively sequence IWPs well in 56b. Internal push-back from middle
project results before implementing advance management
8. Previous attempt to implement 32. Difficulty in scoping/sizing IWPs 56c. Internal push-back from project
AWP was considered 33. Maintaining a constraint-free managers
unsuccessful backlog of IWPs throughout the 56d. Internal push-back from
9. Lack of ongoing alignment among project information management/
owner, contractors, suppliers, and 34. Difficulty with ongoing tracking/ technology
others closing of IWPs 56e. Internal push-back from design
10. Lack of alignment between AWP 35. Belief that experienced field engineering management
implementation strategy and field leadership and crews can 56f. Internal push-back from design
execution construct without IWPs engineers
11. Lack of alignment between AWP 36. Current company processes 56g. Internal push-back from
and front end planning would have to be revised to procurement
12. Contractor does not buy in early include AWP 56h. Internal push-back from project
enough 37. Changes to roles of individuals controls
13. Lack of alignment between AWP when implementing AWP 56i. Internal push-back from
implementation strategy and 38. Difficulty in making AWP fit- construction managers
contract type for-purpose on various sizes of 56j. Internal push-back from
14. Owner does not include clear projects superintendents
AWP requirements in the contract 39. Design engineering organization 56k. Internal push-back from
15. Contract size does not support not supportive of AWP general foremen
AWP implementation 40. Lack of inter-organizational 56l. Internal push-back from
16. Lack of alignment between AWP coordination following a scope foremen
implementation strategy and field change 56m. Internal push-back from field
strategy 41. Project controls not aligned with crews
17. Lack of alignment between AWP AWP 56n. Internal push-back from
implementation strategy and 42. Materials management/logistics schedulers
project scope issues (materials to the work 56o. Internal push-back from cost
18. Not enough qualified resources face) estimators
for implementing AWP 43. Lack of efficient/on-time
19. Owner engages contractors too scaffolding management 57a. External push-back from owner
late to effectively implement AWP 44. Current company culture does 57b. External push-back from
20. Owner late in furnishing items or not fully support AWP engineering design contractor
information 45. Misperception that company 57c. External push-back from
21. Progress payments not linked to already performs AWP (no engineering design/
AWP deliverables change needed) procurement contractor
22. Construction company not 46. Do not need AWP because 57d. External push-back from
available to provide timely path of current project performance/ engineering design/
construction input results are good enough procurement/construction
23. Too many unknowns to 47. Weaknesses in overall AWP contractor
effectively sequence CWPs well organization/coordination 57e. External push-back from
in advance 48. Lack of training construction management
24. Turnover/startup personnel not 49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractor
available to provide timely path of contractors 57f. External push-back from
construction input 50. Poor integration of AWP construction contractor
25. Procurement personnel not information system with other 57g. External push-back from
available to provide timely path of corporate systems subcontractor
construction input 51. Lack of attributes in the design 57h. External push-back from
26. Engineering design sequence model suppliers
not able to match construction 52. Manual or paper-based IWP
sequence management system is inefficient
27. Late AWP implementation for the project size
6
4. Recommendations and opportunities for improvement

This last block of the survey pinpointed which potential solutions the company was
taking or planning to take to overcome the reported barriers. It invited the respondent
to provide recommendations on how to promote the use of AWP across the industry
and to uncover areas that offered opportunities for improvement. This block also asked
whether the respondent would be willing to participate in a follow-up interview. When
the answer was “yes” or “maybe,” the team would include that person as a potential
candidate to be interviewed during the next phase of the research.
The survey was distributed through an anonymous link via Qualtrics, sent by email to
CII member companies. Research team members, CII staff, and DCC members helped
disseminate the link and ensured that companies were participating in the survey. The
survey was not directed to any specific group of respondents (i.e., it was not intended
only to reach only individuals representing engineering or construction). Any qualified
representative in a company could respond, and each company could complete more
than one survey. The team felt that this approach could show different perspectives of
AWP implementation. In cases where a company submitted more than one response,
the separate implementation maturity results were averaged.
The survey received 68 responses from 36 different companies. These responses

were categorized according to company role on projects (i.e., owner, contractor, service
provider, non-CII member) (see Figure 2).
Owners
11
Contractors
16
Non-CII
Members
4 Service
Providers
5
Figure 2. Respondents’ Companies Categorized by Role on Projects (n=36)
7
Appendix B lists the companies that participated in the survey. The survey captured
whether a respondent was from the home office (13 respondents) or a field office (54
respondents). Additionally, the survey gathered information about each respondent’s
extent of industry experience and AWP experience (see Figure 3).
40% 35%
32%
35% 34%
30%
30% 28% 25% 23%
22%
25%
21% 20%
20% 15%
15%
15%
11%
10%
10%
6% 5%
5% 5% 3%
0% 0%
0–10 10–20 20–30 30–40 >40 0–3 3–5 5–10 10–15 15–20 >20
Respondent’s years of industry experience Respondent’s years of AWP experience
Figure 3. Respondents’ Years of Experience
Interviews
As a way to expand on the survey results, the researchers also carried out semi-
structured interviews that provided opportunities to better understand a company’s
AWP procedures and efforts and, thereby, to clarify any questions that may have
arisen from the survey responses. Along with each interview invitation, the team sent
a document that contained the interview guidelines. Each semi-structured interview
lasted 30 minutes and was conducted by members of RT-DCC-04. The team selected
which participants to interview by considering their survey responses and interview
availability.
The interview was designed to most efficiently elucidate relevant information

introduced in the survey. Each interview was divided into the following four sections:
1. An overview of the company’s AWP implementation efforts to date – This
first part of the interview focused on the company’s efforts to implement
AWP. It was important to grasp where the company stood in the AWP
implementation journey. The main point addressed in this section was the
company’s maturity level, which allowed each interviewee to comment on
and clarify the organization’s existing process regarding AWP.
8
2. Top barriers that the company faced during its implementation efforts –
The second section dealt with which barriers the company was facing.
Each interviewee listed the main barriers and commented on them from a
personal point of view. This section focused on understanding the details of
each barrier and how it affected the AWP process.
3. Detailed potential solutions that the company is implementing (or plans
to implement) to overcome these barriers – The next section concerned
potential solutions the company had taken (or contemplated taking) to
overcome the main barriers in the previous section, and discovering how
the company used AWP to best fit its needs. This section allowed the
researchers to gain a better understanding of each company’s solution
to implement AWP more successfully. It also gave RT-DCC-04 a better
understanding of the barriers that still needed solutions.
4. Industry-level recommendations, information, or actions to further promote
the use of AWP and areas of opportunity – This final section of the interview
was intended to collect participants’ recommendations for what CII could do
to promote AWP at the industry level and to uncover opportunity areas that
could be improved. The answers from this section showed the team that it
would need to continue this research effort into a second phase.
By conducting these interviews, team members expected to understand the industry’s

needs and what could be done to help companies implement AWP more successfully.
The team conducted 11 interviews with experts from 10 different companies:

• Bechtel • ExxonMobil
• Black & Veatch • Hargrove
• Burns and McDonnell • Kiewit
• Dow • LyondellBasell
• Eastman • Southern Company
Appendix K summarizes these interviews without naming each company.
The interview findings gave the researchers a deeper understanding of the

respondents’ AWP implementation efforts. The participants explained some of the
barriers that they had listed as “major” in the survey and detailed how they decided
to give a barrier that designation. This process helped the team to recognize the
improvement opportunity areas and to define how CII could proceed to help promote
AWP at the industry level, making sure to cover the expressed needs of the companies.
9
Data Analysis
The team’s data analysis fell into two segments:
1. The quantitative analysis was crucial to identify and rank each barrier, and
to define potential solutions to the barriers.
2. The qualitative analysis validated the quantitative analysis and also
provided more details with regard to the findings.
Report Preparation
RT-DCC-04 prepared a report based on its research findings and recommendations.
The report accomplished several objectives:
• It characterized the status of AWP implementation across DCC members.
• It identified barriers to the successful implementation of AWP.
• It uncovered strategies for overcoming these barriers.
• It made recommendations on how to promote the use of AWP.
Scope Limitations
The data obtained through the survey and interviews were based on the respondents’
experiences with and perspectives on AWP implementation. RT-DCC-04 assumed
that the data collected from the survey and interviews were representative of most
members of DCC. However, because the research captured viewpoints from a relatively
small number of companies (n = 36), the team cautions that the results may not be
representative of the whole industry.
10
Chapter 3
Background Review Findings
RT-DCC-04’s background review facilitated its development of the subsequent

research steps. The review focused on three relevant topics: the AWP maturity model,
potential AWP carriers, and AWP practices and components.
AWP Maturity Model

Research Team 272 developed an AWP maturity model, which it detailed in Volume II
of CII Implementation Resource 272-2, Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation
Guidance (CII/COAA 2013a). A company or project can use this AWP maturity model
to assess its current state of AWP implementation. The maturity model is divided into
five dimensions and three levels of implementation maturity, as Figure 4 shows.
Advanced Work Packaging Implementation Maturity Model
Level 1: AWP Early Stages Level 3: AWP Business Transformation

View of
The potential of the implementation of AWP AWP is seen as part of the business solution -
AWP
strategy is not understood and has few champions. being both an opportunity and a challenge.
AWP is not a priority within the corporate vision.
AWP is developed on an ad hoc basis - most often Integration of AWP strategies are routinely
Project AWP
Strategy
driven by customer demands. developed and updated. These often seek to

overcome integration and communication issues
across project organizational units (silos). AWP is
now included in all contracts.
Work Processes &
Deliverables
Most work occurs inside functional units with

Organization Culture &
minimal collaboration or integration. "Over the

Performance Metrics
wall" approaches are common. The culture

embraces silos. Performance metrics are
silo-oriented. For example engineering perfor-
mance is based on percentage of hours "burned"
vs. budget and not focused on the deliverables
(EWPs) delivered to meet the Path of Construction.
Some training standards are in place based on job Training to fully support a successful AWP imple- Training is continuous and the organization is
descriptions to support AWP. Team members may mentation is fully available, valued and supported considered an industry leader.
Training &
Support
take the training but are still not supported within within the organization.
their organization to implement what they have
learned.
Figure 4. Maturity Model Matrix by RT-272 (CII/COAA 2013a)
11
After RT-272 completed its work, CII commissioned RT-319 to validate AWP as a
best practice. RT-319 developed its own AWP maturity model and applied it to rate a
set of industrial projects. Although RT-319’s maturity model assessment was inspired
by the RT-272 model discussed above, RT-319’s maturity dimensions and maturity
levels were different. The maturity levels were calculated by measuring the diligence
of AWP adoption according to three maturity dimensions:
1. Adherence to prescribed procedures
2. Alignment between execution plans and associated discipline-specific work
packaging deliverables
3. Inclusion of AWP guidelines into key participants’ contracts
To assess maturity, the RT-319 researchers used the following six indicators – two
for each maturity dimension – and calculated the AWP maturity level as the geometric
average of these six indicators’ scores (O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016).
Process Adherence
• In the early planning stage, project execution planning documents included
construction sequences, phases, and boundaries to support AWP.
• Major equipment and procurement data were identified and integrated with
work-packaging schedule.
Organization Alignment
• The work-packaging process was aligned with project procedures.
• The work breakdown structure was aligned with the AWP execution plan and
associated work packages (e.g., CWP, EWP, IWP).
Contract Integration
• Roles and responsibilities were defined in accordance with AWP guidelines.
• Work-packaging requirements and deliverables were integrated within key
project participants’ contracts.
RT-319 calculated project performance by measuring the gap between estimated

and actual project performance. Table 2 shows the matrix the team proposed to measure
project performance (O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016). By graphing the potential scenarios
for interactions between the maturity level and project performance, RT-319 revealed
that projects followed five patterns (e.g., linear, square root, exponential, S-curve, and
J-curve), as shown in Figure 5 (O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016). A qualitative analysis of
the findings from Research Teams 272 and RT-319 enabled RT-DCC-04 to classify
any company based upon the maturity model created by RT-272.
12
3. Background Review Findings
Table 2. Indicators and Scales for Project Performance (O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016)
Performance Score
dimension (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
In line or Improvements Improvements Improvements Improvements
worse than between 0% between 10% between 20% higher than
Productivity estimates (or and 10% and 20% and 30% 30%
previous similar
projects)
The project The project The project The project The project
was delivered finished within finished under finished under finished under
with cost the planned planned budget planned budget planned budget
Cost overrun budget (between 0% (between 5% (more than
including and 5% TIC) and 10% TIC) 10% TIC)
approved
scope changes
TRIR in line TRIR was TRIR was less TRIR was TRIR was 0
or worse than slightly less than previous greatly less
company than previous similar projects than previous
average similar projects or company’s similar projects
Safety or company’s average or company’s
average (between average (more
(between 10% and 20% than 20%
0% and 10% reduction) reduction)
reduction)
The project The project The project The project The project
was delivered was delivered finished within was delivered was delivered
Schedule with major with minor the planned with minor with major
schedule delay delay schedule advance of advance of
time time
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
issued IWPs issued IWPs issued IWPs issued IWPs issued IWPs
that have an that have an that have an that have an that have an
RFI resulting in RFI resulting in RFI resulting in RFI resulting in RFI resulting in
Quality a construction a construction a construction a construction a construction
change order change order is change order is change order is change order is
is higher than between 60% between 40% between 20% lower than 20%
80% and 80% and 60% and 40%
Major Major sporadic Small Small sporadic IWP estimates
continuous changes to continuous changes to were
changes to IWP estimates changes to IWP estimates consistently
Predictability IWP estimates IWP estimates met, reflecting
project
execution
a) Linear b) Square Root c) Exponential d) S-curve e) J-curve
Figure 5. Patterns between AWP Maturity and Project Performance

(O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016)
13
AWP Implementation Barriers

RT-DCC-04 conducted a background review of potential AWP barriers. It began
by considering barriers identified by RT-272, presented by RT-272 researchers at the
2012 COAA Best Practice Conference, and refined by RT-319. RT-DCC-04 then added
more inputs of its own. The final results (captured in Table 1 on page 6 of this document)
represent a combination of barriers identified across all of these efforts. The number
in front of each barrier is a reference number; in no way does it rank the barrier.
Barriers Identified by RT-272

RT-272 conducted interviews with subject matter experts to identify perceived
challenges for AWP implementation. The most common difficulties identified during the
interviews related to lack of alignment, change inertia, lack of buy-in, lack of experience
and training, and lack of inter-organizational coordination.
Barriers Presented at the 2012 COAA Best Practices Conference in Edmonton, Canada
During the 2012 COAA Best Practices Conference, RT-272 researchers presented
the results of a survey that highlighted which barriers the industry had been facing as
it implemented AWP. Some examples of the AWP implementation barriers presented
included lack of clear implementation strategy, inconsistent terminology, need for
standardization of work packaging, and lack of guidelines around AWP implementation.

RT-319 identified the primary difficulties faced during AWP implementation. The
most common difficulties found during this research were change inertia, lack of buy-
in, lack of scope freeze, late engineering deliverables, and poor control process. More
details can be found in the RT-319 documents published by CII (CII/COAA 2015; CII/
COAA 2015a; O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016).
Preliminary List of Barrier Categories Brainstormed by RT-DCC-04

During its kick-off meeting (January 23–24, 2019), RT-DCC-04 brainstormed a
preliminary list of barrier categories, based upon the experience of team members.
RT-DCC-04 used these barriers again later as it composed the final list of barriers for
use in the survey.
14
3. Background Review Findings
AWP Practices and Components

The RT-DCC-04 research built on materials and tools from RT-272 (CII/COAA
2013; CII/COAA 2013a; CII/COAA 2013b) and the Workface Planning Scorecard
proposed by COAA (COAA 2013). RT-DCC-04 analyzed the questions in all of the
assessment tools and scorecards to ensure that the AWP practices and components
were identified.
RT-272 Audit Tool by Phase

The AWP Audit Tool by Phase in Volume II of IR-272 was designed to assess
conformity to the AWP processes at each stage of the project. It was primarily intended
for use by the owner, but it can also be used by other parties to identify gaps in AWP
implementation. The complete version of the tool can be found in IR-272, Volume II
(CII/COAA 2013a).
Workface Planning Scorecard

The Workface Planning Scorecard, developed by COAA, was used as a reference
for the development of the RT-272 Audit Tool by Phase just discussed. Some items
in the Workface Planning Scorecard were not included in the RT-272 Audit Tool by
Phase but may be relevant to DCC implementation of AWP. The complete version of
the tool can be found in COAA’s Advanced Work Packaging & Workface Planning
Scorecard (COAA 2013).
RT-272 Case Study Questionnaire

RT-272 presented a questionnaire about AWP practices and components. The
questions focused around project background and characteristics, workface planning
practices, and project performance. All questions had binary answers (i.e., yes or no)
and space for comments about the questions. The complete version of the tool can
be found in IR-272, Volume II (CII/COAA 2013a).
RT-272 AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool

The AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool helps project teams assess readiness
before implementing AWP in a specific project. The score of the questions is divided
into five levels. The complete version of the tool can be found in IR-272, Volume II
(CII/COAA 2013a).
15
Chapter 4
AWP Implementation Plans and Maturity Levels
RT-DCC-04 analyzed the AWP implementation plans and maturity-level ratings

obtained from the survey responses. Of the 68 survey respondents, 64 indicated that
their company had implemented AWP. Of the four respondents who had not, one was
a contractor, one an owner, and two were service providers. When the team asked
these four respondents why their companies had not implemented AWP, they offered
the following reasons:
“Company does not recognize the value of implementing AWP.”
“Implementing AWP does not appear cost-effective for the company. The cost
of changing engineering and procurement deliverables and the additional staff
necessary to implement AWP is not suitable for the company at the moment.”
AWP Implementation Plans

The team asked the representatives of the 64 companies that implement AWP to
answer several additional questions. Their responses to a question about where their
companies apply or intend to apply AWP demonstrated that AWP is being used globally
(see Figure 6). A question about each company’s scalability approach to applying AWP
showed that respondents considered AWP applicable to projects of all sizes (see Figure 7).
60
51
50
36
Frequency
40
30 23 20 20
20
12 10
10 8 8 7
0
st
pe
lia
a
c
st
.S
ifi
ad
ad
ic
ric
oa
Ea
ra
ro
U
ac
er
Af
an
an
st
fC
Eu
Am
in
-P
e
Au
C
tC
dl
ul
ns
ia
id
st
.G
h
es
As
tio
M
ut
Ea
W
.S
So
ca
U
lo
er
th
O
Figure 6. Where the Company Applies or Intends to Apply AWP
Applicable to projects with TIC> $1B 42

Applicable to projects with TIC> $500M 41
Applicable to projects with TIC> $100M 43
Applicable to projects with TIC< $100M 39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency
Figure 7. AWP’s Applicability to Projects of Various Sizes
17
AWP Implementation Maturity Levels

In order to analyze the maturity levels of the companies, the researchers calculated
a maturity score for each company. Each final score was an average of the company’s
AWP maturity, indicated across all five dimensions proposed by the RT-272 maturity
model. Table 3 shows how this maturity score was calculated.
Table 3. How RT-DCC-04 Calculated a Company’s Maturity Score

MM4 – MM5 –
MM2 – AWP MM3 –
MM1 – Culture and Training
Company Implementation Work Processes Score
View of AWP Performance and
Strategy and Deliverable
Metrics Support
Company A 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.500
After obtaining a maturity score for each company relative to the RT-272 model,
the researchers analyzed each maturity level by considering the role that the company
took on projects (i.e., contractor or owner). The team calculated a score for each group
through the weighted average of the frequency of responses for that group. Unlike with
each company’s maturity analysis, the team calculated a separate group score for each
dimension, instead of combining the five into one total score. Hence, each group had a
different score for each of the five proposed dimensions. Table 4 gives an example of
the group maturity calculation for one dimension (View of AWP Potential and Benefits).
Note that the numbers in the second column reflect the number of responses at each
level. For example, five respondents to the survey marked Level 1 for “View of AWP
Potential and Benefits (Frequency).”
Table 4. How a Group Maturity Score Was Calculated

View of AWP Potential and Benefits
Maturity Level
(Frequency)
1 (Low) 5
1.5 (Between Median and Low) 4
2 (Median) 7
2.5 (Between Median and High) 5
3 (High) 7
Weighted Score 2.09
The team analyzed the maturity of the companies in three ways (shown in Tables 5–7):
• Overall maturity included responses from owners and contractors.
• Contractors’ maturity only accounted for companies that took the role of
contractor.
• Owners’ maturity only accounted for companies that took the role of owner.
18
4. AWP Implementation Plans and Maturity Levels
Table 5. Maturity Model Scores – All (Owners + Contractors) (n= 25)

View of AWP AWP Work AWP in Company
Training and
Maturity Potential Implementation Processes and Culture and
AWP Support
Level and Benefits Strategy Deliverables Performance Metrics
(Frequency)
(Frequency) (Frequency) (Frequency) (Frequency)
1 4 7 4 7 7
1.5 4 8 8 7 10
2 7 4 5 5 5
2.5 4 3 5 5 2
3 6 3 3 1 1
Weighted
Score
2.08 1.74 1.90 1.72 1.60
Table 6. Maturity Model Scores – Contractors (n= 14)

Training and
AWP Support
(Frequency)
1 2 4 1 4 3
1.5 2 3 5 3 7
2 3 3 3 3 2
2.5 3 2 3 3 1
3 4 2 2 1 1
Weighted
Score
2.18 1.82 2.00 1.79 1.64
Table 7. Maturity Model Scores – Owners (n= 11)

Training and
AWP Support
(Frequency)
1 2 3 3 3 4
1.5 2 5 3 4 3
2 4 1 2 2 3
2.5 1 1 2 2 1
3 2 1 1 0 0
Weighted
Score
1.95 1.64 1.77 1.64 1.55
19
By displaying the results in these three ways, the research team was able to analyze
differences in maturity between the contractors and the owners in the five dimensions:
• Both owners and contractors showed a higher maturity level on “View of
AWP Potential and Benefits” and a lower maturity level on “Training and AWP
Support.”
• Both owners and contractors had a higher maturity in terms of AWP potential
and benefits, and a lower maturity in terms of AWP training and support. That
meant that the companies tended to have knowledge about AWP, understood
its benefits, and knew the concepts behind AWP. However, they tended to lack
an understanding of how to apply and put into practice all of the AWP concepts.
• The maturity model scores also gave the research team an idea of the areas
where companies were struggling most. This information could help to identify
which areas represent opportunities for improvement. Finding opportunity areas
is going to help this research to continue its task of promoting the use of AWP at
the industry level. According to the maturity model scores, the main areas where
the companies were struggling were training, metrics, and company culture.
These findings from the maturity model reflect what the RT-DCC-04 research found
in the sections that follow. The areas where the maturity level was lower were directly
related to the AWP implementation barriers that respondents ranked as “major.”
20
Chapter 5
Analysis of AWP Implementation Barriers
As Chapter 2 showed, RT-DCC-04 gathered data on the barriers to implementing

AWP from three different sources:
1. Multiple-choice questions, where a quantitative analysis was used
2. Open-ended survey questions, where qualitative analysis was conducted
3. Interview questions, where a qualitative analysis was performed to obtain
the section findings
This chapter will explain how these quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted
and present their findings related to the barriers.
Quantitative Analysis – Multiple Choice Questions

For the quantitative data, RT-DCC-04 developed a scoring system that would
conform to the research objectives. The team asked participants to rank the barriers
in a multiple-choice question, then explored ranking processes that delivered four
different scores. Table 8 shows the method the team used to calculate each score.
Table 8. Four Methods RT-DCC-04 Used to Score Barriers
Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4

Weighted average Number of Weighted average Number of
excluding None and Major Barriers of all responses Major Barriers
N/A responses Total Number
Total Number of Major = 3, Moderate = 2,
Major = 3, Moderate = 2, Major, Moderate, Minor = 1 of Responses
Minor = 1 and Minor Barriers
Table 9 gives an example of how the same data delivered four barrier scores.
In this example, 19 respondents considered Barrier 1 to have a major impact on the
AWP implementation, 19 thought it had a moderate impact, 10 said it had a minor
impact, 3 felt it had no impact, and 5 judged that the barrier was not applicable to their
procedures. Once RT-DCC-04 had identified that Score 1 was most relevant to the
research objectives, the team ranked the top barriers by Score 1.
Table 9. An Example of How the Team Calculated Barrier Scores

Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
Barriers in the Survey
Barrier 1 19 19 10 3 5 2.19 40% 1.88 34%
21
To give different perspectives of the chief barriers, the team analyzed the data in
the following ways:
• Overall top barriers
• Top barriers divided by owners and contractors’ responses
• Top barriers divided by home office and field office personnel’s responses
• Top barriers considered by three levels of AWP implementation maturity
(i.e., high, median, and low)
After analyzing the data and identifying the top barriers, RT-DCC-04 created
categories to classify the barriers. Through this classification, the researchers
aimed to provide a more streamlined view of areas to improve, and thereby to get a
better understanding of which areas needed more support from CII to facilitate AWP
implementation. Table 10 gives the categories of barriers that the team developed.
Table 10. Categories of Barriers

Categories of Barriers
AWP maturity level, resource availability,
? and AWP understanding
⚙ Integration of AWP with engineering
Company unconvinced of AWP benefits

X or not interested in implementing AWP
Alignment and integration of AWP with
||
existing company processes and systems
Table 11 shows the top barriers according to Score 1, with barrier categories
indicated where appropriate. The overall main barriers were mostly related to the
following topics:
• The maturity level of AWP implementation
• The availability of resources to implement AWP
• The companies’ understanding of AWP
• The integration of AWP with engineering
• The integration of AWP into existing company processes and systems
However, as Table 11 shows, the top overall barriers were related to only the first two
barrier categories.
22
Table 11. Overall Top Barriers in the Survey
Barriers in the Survey Major Moderate Minor None N/A Score 1
? 49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors 18 19 10 3 5 2.17

? 18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP 20 21 12 5 1 2.15
⚙ 57c. External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor 13 14 9 6 10 2.11
⚙ 57b. External push-back from engineering design contractor 13 16 10 6 7 2.08
⚙ 39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP 14 18 12 9 3 2.04
⚙ 57d. External push-back from engineering design/procurement/construction contractor 12 10 11 7 13 2.03
? 3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes 15 25 14 4 1 2.02
57a. External push-back from owner 10 9 10 14 10 2.00
12. Contractor does not buy in early enough 17 10 18 7 7 1.98
54. AWP program is not owner-driven 10 13 11 14 7 1.97
|| 50. Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems 10 28 12 2 3 1.96
|| 10. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution 13 16 15 13 3 1.95
|| 11. Lack of alignment between AWP and front end planning 11 23 14 8 3 1.94
55. Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency 10 15 13 14 3 1.92
5. Analysis of AWP Implementation Barriers

⚙ 26. Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence 14 17 18 5 4 1.92
? AWP maturity level, resource availability, and AWP understanding
X Company unconvinced of AWP benefits or not interested in implementing AWP
|| Alignment and integration of AWP with existing company processes and systems
23
Table 12 depicts the top barriers from the data, divided to isolate contractors and
owners.
Table 12. Contractors and Owners’ Top Barriers

Contractors
Barriers Score
9. Lack of ongoing alignment among owner, contractors, suppliers, and others 2.23
|| 10. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution 2.21
? 18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP 2.19
57a. External push-back from owner 2.17
⚙ 57c. External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor 2.17
⚙ 22. Construction company not available to provide timely path of construction input 2.09
⚙ 57b. External push-back from engineering design contractor 2.08
⚙ 39. Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP 2.07
54. AWP program is not owner-driven 2.07
|| 14. Owner does not include clear AWP requirements in the contract 2.06
Owners
Barriers Score
? 49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors 2.45
? 3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes 2.11
57g. External push-back from subcontractor 2.06
|| 50. Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems 2.00
57d. External push-back from engineering design/procurement/construction
⚙ contractor
2.00
48. Lack of training 1.96

The main barriers for combined contractors and owners were mostly related to
AWP awareness, integration with engineering, and integration between AWP and
existing procedures. For owners alone, the top three barriers were related to AWP
maturity, resource availability, and AWP awareness. For contractors, integrating AWP
with engineering was a more prevalent barrier.
24
Table 13 gives an analysis of the top barriers, according to a separate consideration

of home office and field office personnel.
Table 13. Home and Field Offices’ Top Barriers

Home Office
Barriers Score
55. Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency 1.97
⚙ 57d. External push-back from engineering design/procurement/construction

contractor
1.96
Field Office
Barriers Score
23. Too many unknowns to effectively sequence CWPs well in advance 2.29

contractor
2.29
|| 11. Lack of alignment between AWP and front end planning 2.25
⚙ 26. Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence 2.22
|| 40. Lack of inter-organizational coordination following a scope change 2.20
|| 52. Manual or paper-based IWP management system is inefficient for the project
2.14
size
12. Contractor does not buy in early enough 2.13
The top barriers from survey respondents working in the home office were more
focused on AWP awareness, while the top barriers from those working in the field office
were more focused on integrating AWP with engineering. This difference shows that
the field office was struggling more with the execution of AWP procedures, while the
home office was struggling more with understanding AWP.
25
Table 14 separates the top barriers by AWP implementation maturity level.
Table 14. Top Barriers for Each Maturity Level

High Maturity
Barriers Score

contractor
2.09
|| 10. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution 2.08
57h. External push-back from suppliers 1.92
Median Maturity
Barriers Score
|| 11. Lack of alignment between AWP and front end planning 2.00
55. Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency 1.95
56c. Internal push-back from project managers 1.94
⚙ 26. Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence 1.92
Low Maturity
Barriers Score
X 4. Expectation of limited (or no) benefits to company from AWP 2.50
56o. Internal push-back from cost estimators 2.50
X 6. Company not interested in implementing AWP 2.43
X 7. Awaiting more industry AWP project results before implementing 2.38
X 46. Do not need AWP because current project performance/results are good enough 2.38
? 29. Need (or perceived need) for additional project team members for AWP 2.30
56k. Internal push-back from general foremen 2.21
56m. Internal push-back from field crews 2.21
26
A company’s AWP implementation maturity level often aligned with the barriers it
was prepared to address:
• The high-maturity companies faced barriers more closely connected with
integrating AWP with engineering. This shows that the high-maturity companies
have recognized the benefits of AWP and are now focused on resolving issues
connected with implementing AWP.
• The median maturity companies presented a mix of barriers related to
awareness and barriers related to integration with engineering. These
companies are still in the process of implementing AWP. Only part of a company
has an established awareness of AWP and understands the barriers. And,
because these companies have commenced implementing AWP, they also
recognize some barriers related to AWP procedures.
• The low-maturity companies are encountering more barriers that come with
being unconvinced of AWP’s benefits or of being uninterested in implementing
AWP – another interesting finding. If a company fails to recognize the value of
implementing AWP, it will not invest in the resources necessary to implement it.
These tables only examined the top barriers for each category. The full lists of
ranked barriers for all of these analyses are presented in Appendices C through J.
Qualitative Analysis – Open-ended Questions

The researchers used an open coding method to analyze the responses to the
open-ended survey questions. The objective of the coding system was to group the
high number of responses for any specific question and thereby to provide a more
concise analysis of the qualitative data. The system grouped responses that contained
the same idea, but were worded differently by the various respondents. It permitted a
more efficient study and allowed the researchers to analyze the frequency of a proposed
idea. The team used this system to analyze the open-ended questions for both the top
barriers faced in AWP implementation and the potential solutions to overcome these
barriers. Table 15 shows a list of the barriers that respondents mentioned in the open-
ended questions, but that the team did not include in Table 1.
Note that just because a barrier was mentioned with higher frequency, that does not
necessarily mean that this barrier has a greater impact on AWP implementation than
another barrier that was mentioned less frequently. Instead, more frequent mentions
mean that this company is more aware of this barrier than the others. Thus, the frequency
of mentions is unrelated to severity, but it is related to awareness.
27
Table 15. Major Barriers Mentioned in Open-ended Questions

But Not Included on Table 1
Major Barriers Faced in AWP Implementation Frequency
Engineering packages developed not complete and/or not on time 1
Lack of a fully documented process 4
Lack of alignment on details of EWP process aspects 4
Lack of quantification of benefits 1
Lack of standardization of AWP approach 5
Moving AWP planning into deliverable production 1
Slow to adopt software without client requirements. 1
Tie of AWP to value proposition 1
Long cycle projects with contracts 1
Establishing AWP in an operating facility 1
Lack of vision on AWP and new technologies 1
The survey contained two open-ended questions about a) integration of AWP with
commissioning and startup and b) integration of AWP with the procurement and supply
chain management process. The team used a coding system to analyze the data.
Table 16 shows the results for integration of AWP with commissioning and startup.
Table 17 shows the results for integration of AWP with procurement and supply chain
management processes.
Table 16. Barriers Related to the Integration of AWP

with Commissioning and Startup Processes
Barriers Related to AWP Integration with Commissioning and Startup Processes Frequency
Have not begun to discuss impact of AWP on commissioning and startup activities 1
AWP does not integrate the CSU phase 4
Late engagement on AWP 4
General 3
By owner 1
Lack of training of completions and startup groups 1
Lack of understanding about the true cutoff point between the end of a CWP and the
1
beginning of a TOP
Lack of training for operations/manufacturing project team 1
Set of specifications/contract requirements are flowed down with indifference to which
1
partner company on the project is responsible for specific close-out records
Project delivery is not commissioning-driven and construction-lead 1
Not linking the meta data from commissioning systems and to the quality system 1
Resistance to change 1
Lack of early and clear definition of who is responsible to perform the duties in pre-
1
commissioning
Owner does not participate enough in commissioning 1
28
Table 17. Barriers Related to the Integration of AWP

with Procurement and Supply Chain Management Processes
Barriers Related to AWP Integration with Procurement and Supply Chain Management Frequency
Procurement team seems to be confused about how to implement PWPs 1
Lack of alignment 3
Between vendor, supplier agreements, and payments with sequencing expectations 1
Between AWP process and procurement and supply chain 1
Between procurement and CWP 1
Need consistent language to communicate AWP expectations 1
Late AWP engagement 1

Current ideas on PWP being expounded by certain experts are ludicrous and dangerous
1
to the growth of AWP
Lack of understanding 4
How much of the challenge is due to getting procured items to the laydown yard on
1
time versus getting items from the laydown yard to the workface at the optimal time
From industry on PWPs 1
How to align material items between and purchase order and a CWP 1
Structure of the POs, deliverable, requisitions to the suppliers, vendors, and
1
fabricators
Need better data requirements and integration 1
The concept of needing to cut POs by CWP 1
EPC database being “one source of truth” 1
Late AWP engagement 1
Design information is not in a format that could be used by procurement 1

Timely and accurate shipping and master materials list information from suppliers and
1
sub-suppliers
Lack of AWP requirements for procurement 1
Resistance to change 1
29
Qualitative Analysis – Interviews

The team again used the open coding method to analyze the interview results. As
was mentioned in the section above, this method enabled the team to group responses
that contained the same idea but were worded differently. The barriers mentioned during
the interviews matched those that respondents had listed as “major” during the survey.
During the interviews, RT-DCC-04 members observed similar relationships between
a company’s maturity level and the types of barriers that it faced:
• Higher-maturity companies faced barriers related to AWP procedures and how
to make them more efficient. These were mostly related to integrating AWP
with engineering.
• Median-maturity companies presented barriers related to AWP procedures,
but also related to understanding AWP concepts and benefits.
• Lower-maturity companies identified barriers related to their understanding
of AWP concepts and their benefits, or barriers that reflected a low interest in
implementing AWP.
The interviews also revealed some deeper causes for the identified barriers to
implementing AWP:
• One of the main barriers mentioned in interviews was the poor integration
of engineering and AWP. Sometimes, when designing AWP, engineering did
not follow the path of construction. This led to the late delivery of information
needed for construction to proceed. Some interviewees mentioned that, on the
engineering side, there was a resistance to change. They reported that some
engineers were reluctant to change the way that design was performed, giving
rise to a misalignment between engineering and construction.
It is important to emphasize that the issues related to this barrier are more
complex than just noting engineering’s resistance to change and identifying
that the design of AWP does not respect construction sequencing. Engineers
also struggled to obtain information from vendors and subcontractors in a
timely manner, and this problem also contributed to misalignment between
engineering and construction. For example, before it can design a slab,
engineering needs the specification of the equipment that will be located on that
slab. Thus, supplying that slab design depends upon the supplier’s providing
the equipment’s specification. And thereby, if the supplier fails to do its part in
a timely manner, engineering must delay the delivery of the AWP.
30
• Another major barrier mentioned by interviewees was a generally poor

understanding of AWP. The industry is having difficulties accessing recent data,
case studies, and other information on how to implement AWP. As important
as understanding the concepts and benefits is, participants revealed during
the interviews that even companies that possess “book knowledge” of AWP
still struggle to apply that information to projects. Interviewees mentioned that
plenty of resources support AWP implementation, but finding those resources
is sometimes difficult.
• A final barrier that participants mentioned during the interviews was the lack of
AWP standardization. Promoting AWP education could be the way to diminish
this barrier, since such training could promote standard nomenclature and
AWP best practices.
31
Chapter 6
Potential Solutions for the Main Barriers
RT-DCC-04 analyzed potential solutions for the main AWP implementation barriers,
considering the responses from the survey and the interviews. The team used its open
coding system to categorize the results and to provide a more efficient data analysis
of the potential solutions companies used to overcome the barriers.
Table 18 shows some top barriers. Each is followed by a list of the potential
solutions that survey respondents proposed to overcome that barrier, and a count of
how frequently each solution came up.
Table 18. Potential Solutions for Some Top Barriers to AWP Implementation
Potential Solutions for Top Barriers to AWP Implementation Frequency
49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors
Perform training 2
Drive adoption (owner-driven) 1
Increase contractor’s maturity 1
Set up program with clear expectations 1
Support contractors on AWP implementation 2
Increase education on AWP 4
Hire consultants 1
Push for functional assistance 1
Acquire senior management buy-in 1
Engage early on AWP implementation 1
Assess AWP implementation maturity level 1
3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes
Plan for engagement with the contractors on AWP implementation 1
Use lessons learned from projects to understand AWP 1
Perform training 4
General 2
Building internal training program 1
Formalize role-based training 1
Hire consultants 1
Organize/participate in workshops 1
Document the capital process 1
33
(continued)
18. Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP
Perform training 7
General 5
Train project team 1
Develop in-house training 1
Intervene early in AWP implementation 1
Use digital AWP playbooks 1
Acquire company buy-in 1
Discuss AWP matters during FEED 1
Value the workface planner position 1
Increase education based on first project 1
Conduct early talks with the established, cohesive, mutually aligned PM group 1
Develop AWP best practices 1
Support how to implement AWP 1
Analyze results from implementation and lessons learned 2
12. Contractor does not buy in early enough
Require AWP from contractor (owner) 1
Perform training 2
Hire consultants 1
Develop commercial terms and conditions that include AWP 1
Engage early in AWP implementation 2
General 1
Contractor 1
Assess gaps in project lifecycle 1
14. Owner does not include clear AWP requirements in the contract
Perform training 1
Pay fabricators for complete PWPs, only when the last piece is shipped 1
Negotiate contract conditions with the owner 1
Hire consultants 1
34
6. Potential Solutions for the Main Barriers
(continued)
39. Design engineering organization is not supportive of AWP
Increase education of design engineering on AWP 1
Perform training 2
Hire consulting 1
Define champions and leaders on the AWP implementation 1
Conduct assessment 1
Conduct workshops 1
Engage AWP specialists early 1
Establish an overall PM group that is tied to a mutually agreed contract 1
57. External push-back from owner, engineering design contractor, engineering design/
procurement contractor, engineering design/procurement/construction contractor
General 1
Industry 1
Drive adoption (owner-driven) 1
Perform training 3
Hire consultants 1
Increase contractor’s commitment to AWP 1
Engage early on AWP implementation 1
Acquire buy-in from engineering 1
Subcontract to comply with path of construction 1
Implement a 3D model procedure defining minimum requirements for model 1
Include AWP requirements in project contracts 1
Support contractors as a team approach in AWP efforts 1
Be more explicit in AWP expectations in contracts 1
Change project delivery models from design-bid-build 1
Engage collaborators that are capable of providing relevant content for IWPs 1
Plan for engagement and Joint Industry Program with contractors and consultant 1
50. Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems
Need a software consultant to tie all of the information together 1
Use a single, integrated IT solution for the data streams for all elements of AWP 1
35
(continued)
44. Current company culture does not fully support AWP
Align points within the organization at the executive, department, project, and worker
1
levels
Transform ongoing program to fit company processes to AWP 1
Top-down initiative from leaders and awareness that best results can be achieved with
1
AWP implementation process
10. Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution
Prove AWP implementation benefits 1
Require AWP from contractor (owner) 1
Engage contractor early 1
54. AWP program is not owner-driven
Give financial authority to AWP manager 1
Discuss with owners to realize the cost benefits of implementing AWP 1
General potential solutions with regard to the top barriers
Perform training 5
Support contractors on AWP implementation 1
Support of center of excellence for AWP 1
Expand organization understanding of AWP 1
Quantify safety, quality, cost, and schedule improvements 1
Quantify maturity of AWP in project 1
Clearly state AWP requirements on contract 1
Plan for engagement with the contractors on AWP implementation 1
Share data when AWP has been applied 1
Provide subject matter expertise 1
Provide periodic feedback during project’s life cycle 1
Ongoing transformation program to fit company processes to AWP 1
36
6. Potential Solutions for the Main Barriers
Many potential solutions dealt with AWP training and education, which means that
companies see the importance of investing in AWP education to have successful AWP
implementation. Companies that presented a higher AWP implementation maturity
claimed that training and AWP education were key to obtaining the necessary knowledge
to incorporate AWP in their normal procedures. AWP education also helps companies
overcome other major barriers, such as lack of buy-in, resistance to changing old
procedures, and lack of recognition of AWP benefits.
It is also important to identify solutions for the barriers that relate to the integration
of engineering with AWP implementation. One action to overcome this type of barrier
would be to educate engineering staff. When engineering realizes the benefits of AWP
and learns how to design AWP more efficiently, engineering and construction become
better aligned, thereby making AWP implementation run more smoothly. Another
suggestion was to make explicit the AWP requirements in the contract, meaning that
the owner should drive implementation.
37
Chapter 7
How to Promote the Use of AWP
Chapter 6 addressed the promotion of AWP at the industry level. The team used
an open coding approach to analyze the open-ended questions about barriers and
actions. It also used this approach to analyze this next section of the research. This
chapter presents the actions respondents proposed to promote AWP. The results in
this section are aligned with the findings from the interviews and from the maturity
level assessment.
During the interviews, respondents mentioned the need for AWP training and
education. In fact, most of the respondents’ recommendations (shown in Table 19 over
the following pages) were related to AWP training and education. The most frequent
recommendations fell into three topics:
1. Provide case studies, key metrics, and benchmarks
2. Increase AWP understanding
3. Promote AWP education and training
However, as was true for the maturity level assessment, the lowest score referred to
“Training and AWP Support.”
39
Table 19. Recommended Opportunities to Further Promote the Use of AWP

Recommended Opportunities to Further Promote the Use of AWP Frequency
Promote AWP education and training 8
Participate in oil & gas technical workshop and conference (e.g., OTC, AOGC, SPE) 1
Provide training lessons and lessons learned 1
Create curriculum for training 1
Promote AWP similar to same efforts for safety 1
Promote via conference calls, meetings, and annual conference 1
Collect AWP knowledge in a book, provide a standard for companies to follow 1
Provide material and workshops to ease the implementation of AWP in engineering 1
Provide a clear and concise description of AWP deliverables on the CII website 1
Provide case studies, key metrics, and benchmarks 11
Showcase key metrics for AWP implementation 1
Present more use cases of actual projects that benefitted from using the AWP process 5
Highlight contractors that have become preferred partner for owners due to their successful
1
implementation of AWP
Highlight companies that have created a strategic advantage through use of AWP 1
Provide backup information on specific case studies 1
Provide examples of contractors of different sizes that have leveraged AWP to create
1
transformational success
Present things that other companies have done to overcome barriers 1
Look to standardize a data schema/model standard for AWP-related project data 1
Establish the process flow as an industry standard that shows the work process
as a whole, identifying the benefits of each action and how it integrates with the 1
successful use of AWP
Promote the smart, fit-for-purpose implementation of AWP; not an “AWP or
1
nothing else” approach
Data and information management 4
Digitally integrate the data view – physical packages are irrelevant to the tools and workflow 1
Upload templates for companies to use 1
Keep AWP directly connected to the overall AWP program vision that includes furthering
1
the development of computer-generated, path-of-construction applications
Engage with suppliers to enrich their models and data deliverable 1
Include CSU packages as part of AWP 1
Create guidelines on timing for engagement of various groups 1
Consider further supporting the development of workface planner education and
1
training
40
7. How to Promote the Use of AWP
Table 19. Recommended Opportunities to Further Promote the Use of AWP

(continued)
Recommended Opportunities to Further Promote the Use of AWP Frequency
Work with owners 1
Address their barriers to implementation 1
Focus on changing the engineering contractor’s perception of AWP being a
1
risk/issue
Increase AWP understanding 9
Help to understand the AWP implementation process 3
Provide more awareness on AWP to Asia Pacific contractors 1
Continue working with COAA to agree upon standard methods for cost savings and
productivity savings. Consider sharing “best-in-class” AWP success at the CII Annual 1
Conference
Ensure the industry properly understands the intent of AWP 1
Showing how to better align and incentivize E&P contractors 1
Updated quantification of AWP benefits – ROI research and publication. 1
Describe how owners can realize the benefits from application of AWP in an EPC lump
1
sum environment
Top brass should encourage EPC companies with AWP implementation 1
Owner should push the construction strategy from the bid package and into
1
the contract
One of the most effective ways to promote the use of AWP is to increase education
and access to implementation resources. Indeed, the key to increasing management
buy-in and incentivizing companies to implement AWP is to disseminate the benefits
and case studies of AWP concepts. Education is also very important to increase the
maturity level of the company. Teaching a company how to implement AWP will improve
its AWP procedure and guide the company to a more successful implementation.
41
Chapter 8
Conclusion
In this study, RT-DCC-04 aimed to recommend strategies that can promote the use
of AWP in the downstream and chemicals sector of the capital projects industry. In order
to achieve this goal, the team identified companies that are implementing AWP. Data
collected from these companies through survey and interviews allowed the researchers
to analyze challenges and success factors associated with AWP implementation. The
team was able to identify the focus of the companies’ AWP implementation efforts
and assess their maturity levels. The findings provided a deeper understanding of the
companies’ AWP implementation journeys, including the main barriers that they are
facing and their potential actions to overcome these barriers.
The research findings indicated that AWP is being utilized globally in a wide range
of project sizes, from those below $100 million to those above $1 billion. Among the
companies that participated in this study, the average AWP implementation maturity
level (based on the five dimensions of the RT-272 maturity model) was 1.8 on a range
from 1.0 to 3.0. The average maturity level was 1.9 for the contractors and 1.7 for the
owners. This analysis showed that there was greater AWP implementation maturity in
the dimensions that deal with understanding AWP benefits, while the maturity was lower
in those dimensions that deal with AWP implementation strategy, training, and support.
This study conducted a comprehensive analysis of AWP implementation barriers

using quantitative and qualitative methods. Among the analyses reported, one finding
indicated a relationship between the barriers faced by a company and its maturity level:
• The main barriers for companies with higher maturity levels were related to
integrating AWP with engineering and integrating AWP procedures with existing
processes. These companies have already recognized the benefits of AWP, but
are still facing challenges with some specific aspects of AWP implementation.
• The companies with median maturity presented barriers related to a lack of
mature resources to implement AWP and insufficient understanding of how to
integrate AWP with existing procedures. These companies were in a transition
period.
• The lower-maturity companies presented barriers related to recognizing the
value of AWP and understanding its concepts. These companies were still not
convinced about the AWP benefits and needed more evidence to persuade
them.
43
RT-DCC-04 identified potential solutions for the main AWP implementation barriers
from the responses to its survey and interviews. The team used an open coding system
to categorize potential solutions and provide a more efficient data analysis of how
they can overcome the barriers. The researchers also compiled survey and interview
participants’ suggestions on how to promote the use of AWP.
The research findings made clear that there are ways to positively affect AWP
implementation at the industry level. The team’s results showed that two topics need
more attention at this point:
1. Improving the integration of engineering and AWP implementation
resources
The next phase of RT-DCC-04 research will focus on these two areas.
44
Bibliography
CII (Construction Industry Institute) and COAA (Construction Owners Association of

Alberta) (2013). Advanced Work Packaging: Design through Workface Execution.
Volume I: Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1. Austin, TX: Construction
Industry Institute.
CII/COAA (2013a). Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Guidance. Volume II:

Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry
Institute.
CII/COAA (2013b). Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Case Studies and

Expert Interviews. Volume III: Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1. Austin,
TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII/COAA (2015). Validating Advanced Work Packaging as a Best Practice: A Game

Changer. Implementation Resource 319-2. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII/COAA (2015a). Making the Case for Advanced Work Packaging as a Standard (Best)
Practice. Research Summary 319-1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
COAA (2013). Advanced Work Packaging & Workface Planning Scorecard. COP-WFP-
TMP-18-2013-v1. Edmonton, AB: Construction Owners Association of Alberta.
O’Brien, W. J., and Ponticelli, S. (2016). Transforming the Industry: Advanced Work
Packaging as a Standard (Best) Practice. Research Report 319-11. Austin, TX:
Construction Industry Institute.
45
Appendix A
Survey Questions
CII RT-DCC-04: Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging
Survey
CII has formed Research Team DCC-04, Promoting the Use of Advanced Work
Packaging, to achieve the following objectives:
1. Identify the organizations that are implementing AWP.
2. Identify the barriers that the organizations implementing AWP are facing for
its successful implementation.
3. Pinpoint the strategies being adopted by organizations to overcome the
barriers for successful implementation of AWP.
4. Discover the reasons why some organizations are not implementing AWP.
5. Uncover opportunities related to “people,” “process,” and “technology”
aspects that can be leveraged to improve the utilization of AWP.
This survey has been developed to help the research team achieve these goals.
Your response is completely confidential. All information gathered as part of this

research will be treated in strictest confidence and kept under conditions of security
at The University of Texas at Austin. We will provide participating organizations with
a summary of the research findings. Specific individuals, jobs, and organizations will
not be named in this summary.
Survey completion is estimated at 20 minutes.
Please complete the survey by April 12th, 2019.
This survey should be completed based on the current situation of your

company with regard to AWP implementation.
47
Q1 – General Information
Company: _______________________________________________________
Your work location: _________________________________________________
Name: __________________________________________________________
Position: _________________________________________________________
Years of experience: ________________________________________________
Years of AWP experience: ____________________________________________
Email: ___________________________________________________________
Q2 – Are you in a Home Office or a Field Office?
🔘 Home Office 🔘 Field Office
Q3 – What are the roles your company typically takes on projects

(by estimated size)?
Total Installed Cost

<$100 million >$100 million >$500 million >$1 billion N/A
Owner
Owner construction
management
Engineering design contractor
Engineering design and

procurement contractor
Engineering design,
procurement and construction
management contractor
Construction management
contractor
Construction contractor
Subcontractor
Supplier
Note: “N/A” indicates that your company does not take any role on that type of project
48
Appendix A: Survey Questions
Q4 – Has your company implemented or is it planning to implement AWP?
☐ Yes ☐ No
** If the response is “Yes” – Survey skips to Q6.
** If the response is “No” – Survey skips to Q5.
Q5 – What are the reasons for not implementing AWP?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
** The survey skips to the end after the respondent answers this question.
Q6 – Select the locations where your company is applying or intends to apply

AWP (select all that apply)
☐ U.S. Gulf Coast ☐ Other locations in U.S.

☐ East Canada ☐ Asia-Pacific
☐ West Canada ☐ Australia
☐ Europe ☐ Africa
☐ South America ☐ Middle East
Q7 – What is the current or planned company scalability approach to applying

AWP? (Select all that apply)
** TIC = Total Installed Cost
☐ Apply on projects with TIC<$100M ☐ Apply on projects with TIC>$100M

☐ Apply on projects with TIC>$500M ☐ Apply on projects with TIC<$1B
49
MATURITY MODEL QUESTIONS
CII RT-272 developed a Maturity Matrix Model to assess the maturity of AWP
implementation in organizations. The RT-272 model has five maturity dimensions:
1. View of AWP
2. AWP Implementation Strategy
3. Work Processes and Deliverables
4. Culture and Performance Metrics
5. Training and Support
The questions below are intended to assess your company’s maturity with regard to these
dimensions.
Q8 – Select the statement that best describes the maturity of AWP

implementation in your organization with regard to View of AWP.
🔘 Level 1: The potential of the implementation of AWP strategy is not understood

and has few champions. AWP is not a priority within the corporate vision.
🔘 Level 1.5: The maturity of the organization is between Level 1 (above) and
Level 2 (below).
🔘 Level 2: AWP is seen as part of the business solution – being both an

opportunity and a challenge.
Level 3 (below).
🔘 Level 3: AWP is fully integrated with the business strategy and seen as
invaluable. It enables true differentiation between you and the competition.
50

implementation in your organization with regard to AWP Implementation
Strategy.
🔘 Level 1: AWP is developed on an ad hoc basis – most often driven by

customer demands.
Level 2 (below).
🔘 Level 2: Integration of AWP strategies are routinely developed and updated.

These often seek to overcome integration and communication issues across
project organizational units (silos). AWP is now included in all contracts.
Level 3 (below).
🔘 Level 3: Barriers to implementation of AWP strategies are minimal and project-

specific planning focuses more on advancing strategic business needs and
interests. Contracts include AWP language supported by commercial terms,
plans and procedures.
implementation in your organization with regard to Work Processes
and Deliverables.
🔘 Level 1: Work processes and deliverables are in the development stage. They
are not well defined and are not structured for implementation across business
units (silos). Inputs and outputs required of stakeholders to support the
strategy are not defined and no discipline is involved. Most processes support
individuals or isolated work groups and are not fully integrated.
Level 2 (below).
🔘 Level 2: Work processes and deliverables for individual business functions

or department are mostly well defined and standardized. Integration of
these processes are still problematic across functional unit lines. Frustration
will be experienced when some functions are progressing towards AWP
implementation but are set back by other silos who are not supporting the
integration.
Level 3 (below).
🔘 Level 3: Work processes and deliverables are fully integrated across functional
units. Each stakeholder understands their responsibilities to provide accurate
and timely deliverables to support the strategy. This allows more time for
productive analysis of deliverables and supports flexible, adaptable integrated
work processes. Work processes represent best-in-class use of corporate
knowledge and AWP practices.
51
implementation in your organization with regard to Culture and
Performance Metrics.
🔘 Level 1: Most work occurs inside functional units with minimal collaboration
or integration. “Over the wall” approaches are common. The culture embraces
silos. Performance metrics are silo oriented. For example, engineering
performance is based on percentage of hours “burned” vs. budget and
not focused on the deliverables (EWPs) delivered to meet the Path of
Construction.
Level 2 (below).
🔘 Level 2: Functional responsibilities for AWP are clearly defined and

integration is occurring across key functional lines. Many silos have been
bridged, but some still exist. Overcoming these is viewed as an opportunity
for advancement. Integrated approaches are valued. Performance metrics
are a mix of silo and team-oriented basis. For example, status is based on
percentage of complete EWPs and IWPs that have been delivered on or before
required to support the Path of Construction.
Level 3 (below).
🔘 Level 3: Silos are no longer a barrier to implementation of AWP and the

organization has seamless boundaries between work functions and major
project stakeholders. Silos that do exist remain for business, not technical
reasons. Integrated approaches and associated benefits are ingrained in
the culture. Performance metrics focus on business performance, customer
satisfaction and team success. Continuous improvement processes in place.
implementation in your organization with regard to Training and
Support.
🔘 Level 1: Some training standards are in place based on job descriptions to

support AWP. Team members may take the training but are still not supported
within their organization to implement what they have learned.
Level 2 (below).
🔘 Level 2: Training to fully support a successful AWP implementation is fully

available, valued and supported within the organization.
Level 3 (below).
🔘 Level 3: Training is continuous and the organization is considered an industry

leader.
52
Q13 – Describe the most important barriers that your company is facing in its
efforts to implement AWP.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
The following questions aim to further identify and assess the barriers that your organization
is facing for the successful implementation of AWP.
Q14 – Rate the impact of the following barriers when implementing AWP in
your company
Note: “None” indicates the barrier does not affect the implementation of AWP.
“N/A” indicates the barrier is not relevant to your company.
Impact of Barrier
Major Moderate Minor None N/A
1. Lack of buy-in
2. Lack of AWP champion/leadership

3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP
methodology and processes
4. Expectation of limited (or no) benefits to company
from AWP
5. Cost to implement
6. Company not interested in implementing AWP

7. Awaiting more industry AWP project results
before implementing
8. Previous attempt to implement AWP was
considered unsuccessful
9. Lack of ongoing alignment among owner,
contractors, suppliers, and others
10. Lack of alignment between AWP
implementation strategy and field execution
11. Lack of alignment between AWP and front end
planning
12. Contractor does not buy in early enough
Q14.1 – Please, describe the actions being taken to overcome the barriers
that you have marked as a major barrier. These are:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
**This question appears if any barrier is marked as major
53
your company
Impact of Barrier
implementation strategy and contract type
14. Owner does not include clear AWP
requirements in the contract
15. Contract size does not support AWP
implementation
implementation strategy and field strategy
implementation strategy and project scope
18. Not enough qualified resources for
implementing AWP
19. Owner engages contractors too late to
effectively implement AWP
20. Owner late in furnishing items or information
21. Progress payments not linked to AWP

deliverables
22. Construction company not available to provide
timely path of construction input
23. Too many unknowns to effectively sequence
CWPs well in advance
24. Turnover/startup personnel not available to
provide timely path of construction input
Q15.1 – Please describe the actions being taken to overcome the barriers that
you have marked as a major barrier. These are:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
**This question appears if any barrier is marked
54
your company
Impact of Barrier
25. Procurement personnel not available to provide
timely path of construction input
26. Engineering design sequence not able to match
construction sequence
27. Late AWP implementation
28. Inconsistency in AWP implementation due to

lack of structured process
29. Need (or perceived need) for additional project
team members for AWP
30. “Silos” among project team groups limit
integration
31. Too many unknowns to effectively sequence
IWPs well in advance
32. Difficulty in scoping/sizing IWPs
33. Maintaining a constraint-free backlog of IWPs

throughout the project
34. Difficulty with ongoing tracking/closing of IWPs
35. Belief that experienced field leadership and

crews can construct without IWPs
36. Current company processes would have to be
revised to include AWP
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
**This question appears if any barrier is marked.
55
your company
Impact of Barrier
37. Changes to roles of individuals when
implementing AWP
38. Difficulty in making AWP fit-for-purpose on
various sizes of projects
39. Design engineering organization not supportive
of AWP
40. Lack of inter-organizational coordination
following a scope change
41. Project controls not aligned with AWP
42. Materials management/logistics issues

(materials to the work face)
43. Lack of efficient/on-time scaffolding
management
44. Current company culture does not fully support
AWP
45. Misperception that company already performs
AWP (no change needed)
46. Do not need AWP because current project
performance/results are good enough
47. Weaknesses in overall AWP organization/
coordination
48. Lack of training
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
**This question appears if any barrier is marked.
56
your company
Impact of Barrier
49. Low level of AWP maturity among contractors
50. Poor integration of AWP information system

with other corporate systems
51. Lack of attributes in the design model
52. Manual or paper-based IWP management

system is inefficient for the project size
53. Transition from construction by area to
commissioning by system
54. AWP program is not owner-driven
55. Lack of financial incentives to improve

execution efficiency
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
57
your company
Impact of Barrier
56. INTERNAL lack of support from: Major Moderate Minor None N/A
56a. Upper management
56b. Middle management
56c. Project managers
56d. Information management/technology
56e. Design engineering management
56f. Design engineers
56g. Procurement
56h. Project controls
56i. Construction managers
56j. Superintendents
56k. General foremen
56l. Foremen
56m. Field crews
56n. Schedulers
56o. Cost estimators
Q19.1 – Describe the actions to overcome INTERNAL lack of support
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
58
your company
Impact of Barrier
57. EXTERNAL lack of support from: Major Moderate Minor None N/A
57a. Owner
57b. Engineering design contractor
57c. Engineering design/procurement contractor

57d. Engineering design/procurement/construction
contractor
57e. Construction management contractor
57f. Construction contractor
57g. Subcontractor
57h. Suppliers
Q20.1 – Describe the actions to overcome EXTERNAL lack of support
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Q21 – Any further comments on barriers related to the integration of AWP

with procurement and supply chain management processes.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Q22 – Any further comments on barriers related to the integration of AWP

with commissioning and startup processes.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
59
Q23 – Please provide your recommendations for actions that can be taken by
Construction Industry Institute now to further promote the use of AWP
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Q24 – Are you willing to consider participating in a 30-minute follow-up

interview to discuss your responses to this survey?
☐ Yes ☐ Maybe ☐ No
If you would like to make any changes, this is your last opportunity.
Just press “Back” to edit the survey.
You’ve reached the end of the survey.
Thanks for your contribution to

helping this research team serve the CII member companies.
60
Appendix B
Companies that Participated on the Survey
APTIM Hilti Insight AWP

Autodesk, Inc. KBR
Baker Concrete Construction Inc. Kiewit
Bechtel LyondellBasell
Bentley Systems Matrix Service Inc.
Black and Veatch Performance Contractors, Inc.
Burns & McDonnell Petronas
Chevron Saipem
ConocoPhillips Saudi Aramco
Construtora Norberto Odebrecht Self
Construct-X Southern Company
Dow Chemical thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions
Eastman Turner Industries Group, LLC
EnLink Midstream U.S. Department of Energy,
ExxonMobil Office of Science
GlaxoSmithKline WorleyParsons
Golden Pass LNG Export Project Zachry Group
Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
61
Appendix C
Top Barriers Identified in the Survey in Rank Order
Score Calculation
3×a + 2×b + 1×c a 3×a + 2×b + 1×c a
a+b+c a+b+c a + b + c +d + e a + b + c +d + e
Where a (Major) = 3; b (Moderate) = 2; c (Minor) = 1
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
Barriers in the Survey (Overall)
49. Low level of AWP maturity 18 19 10 3 5 2.17 38% 1.85 33%
among contractors
18. Not enough qualified resources 20 21 12 5 1 2.15 38% 1.93 34%
for implementing AWP
57c. External push-back from 13 14 9 6 10 2.11 36% 1.46 25%
engineering design/procurement
contractor
57b. External push-back from 13 16 10 6 7 2.08 33% 1.56 25%
engineering design contractor
39. Design engineering organization 14 18 12 9 3 2.05 32% 1.61 25%
not supportive of AWP
57d. External push-back from 12 10 11 7 13 2.03 36% 1.26 23%
engineering design/procurement/
construction contractor
3. Lack of clear understanding of AWP 15 25 14 4 1 2.02 28% 1.85 25%
57a. External push-back from owner 10 9 10 14 10 2.00 34% 1.09 19%
12. Contractor does not buy in early 17 10 18 7 7 1.98 38% 1.51 29%
enough
54. AWP program is not owner- 10 13 11 14 7 1.97 29% 1.22 18%
driven
50. Poor integration of AWP 10 28 12 2 3 1.96 20% 1.78 18%
information system with other
corporate systems
10. Lack of alignment between AWP 13 16 15 13 3 1.95 30% 1.43 22%
implementation strategy and field
execution
and front end planning
55. Lack of financial incentives to 10 15 13 14 3 1.92 26% 1.33 18%
improve execution efficiency
26. Engineering design sequence 14 17 18 5 4 1.92 29% 1.62 24%
not able to match construction
sequence
56c. Internal push-back from 8 19 12 12 3 1.90 21% 1.37 15%
project managers
63
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
14. Owner does not include clear 15 10 20 8 6 1.89 33% 1.44 25%
AWP requirements in the contract
22. Construction company not 6 20 10 16 7 1.89 17% 1.15 10%
available to provide timely path of
construction input
21. Progress payments not linked to 12 13 17 11 6 1.88 29% 1.34 20%
AWP deliverables
30. “Silos” among project team 10 23 16 7 2 1.88 20% 1.59 17%
groups limit integration
9. Lack of ongoing alignment among 10 22 16 8 3 1.88 21% 1.53 17%
owner, contractors, suppliers, and
others
44. Current company culture does 11 11 16 16 2 1.87 29% 1.27 20%
not fully support AWP
2. Lack of AWP champion/leadership 11 15 17 14 2 1.86 26% 1.36 19%
51. Lack of attributes in the design 9 18 15 7 6 1.86 21% 1.42 16%
model
48. Lack of training 9 26 17 2 2 1.85 17% 1.71 16%
56e. Internal push-back from 7 19 13 10 5 1.85 18% 1.33 13%
design engineering management
19. Owner engages contractors too 12 11 20 11 5 1.81 28% 1.32 20%
late to effectively implement AWP
45. Misperception that company 10 10 17 13 6 1.81 27% 1.20 18%
already performs AWP (no change
needed)
56b. Internal push-back from 2 25 9 15 3 1.81 6% 1.20 4%
middle management
1. Lack of buy-in 10 20 21 7 1 1.78 20% 1.54 17%
5. Cost to implement 11 18 22 7 1 1.78 22% 1.54 19%
41. Project controls not aligned with 6 21 16 12 1 1.77 14% 1.36 11%
AWP
57e. External push-back from 7 9 14 4 19 1.77 23% 1.00 13%
construction management
contractor
27. Late AWP implementation 9 20 21 6 4 1.76 18% 1.47 15%
57h. External push-back from 8 15 18 6 6 1.76 20% 1.36 15%
suppliers
28. Inconsistency in AWP 5 29 18 4 2 1.75 10% 1.57 9%
implementation due to lack of
structured process
36. Current company processes 7 18 18 11 3 1.74 16% 1.32 12%
would have to be revised to include
AWP
42. Materials management/logistics 9 14 20 10 3 1.74 21% 1.34 16%
issues (materials to the work face)
64
Appendix C: Top Barriers Identified in the Survey in Rank Order
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
13. Lack of alignment between 8 20 22 6 3 1.72 16% 1.46 14%
AWP implementation strategy and
contract type
47. Weaknesses in overall AWP 4 25 17 7 3 1.72 9% 1.41 7%
organization/coordination
29. Need (or perceived need) for 10 17 25 4 2 1.71 19% 1.53 17%
additional project team members for
AWP
38. Difficulty in making AWP fit-for- 6 21 20 7 2 1.70 13% 1.43 11%
purpose on various sizes of projects
56j. Internal push-back from 4 13 13 12 12 1.70 13% 0.94 7%
superintendents
56a. Internal push-back from 4 15 14 17 4 1.70 12% 1.04 7%
upper management
56i. Internal push-back from 5 13 15 18 2 1.70 15% 1.06 9%
construction managers
56f. Internal push-back from design 5 17 17 10 5 1.69 13% 1.22 9%
engineers
35. Belief that experienced field 7 17 21 7 6 1.69 16% 1.31 12%
leadership and crews can construct
without IWPs
20. Owner late in furnishing items or 7 19 22 8 4 1.69 15% 1.35 12%
information
57g. External push-back from 7 14 20 6 6 1.68 17% 1.30 13%
subcontractor
strategy
56g. Internal push-back from 7 13 21 10 3 1.66 17% 1.26 13%
procurement
52. Manual or paper-based IWP 4 17 17 6 11 1.66 11% 1.15 7%
management system is inefficient
for the project size
40. Lack of inter-organizational 3 20 17 11 3 1.65 8% 1.22 6%
coordination following a scope
change
56d. Internal push-back from 5 12 17 18 2 1.65 15% 1.04 9%
information management/
technology
34. Difficulty with ongoing tracking/ 4 19 19 9 7 1.64 10% 1.19 7%
closing of IWPs
23. Too many unknowns to 5 18 22 10 4 1.62 11% 1.24 8%
effectively sequence CWPs well in
advance
4. Expectation of limited (or no) 5 19 23 9 3 1.62 11% 1.29 8%
benefits to company from AWP
24. Turnover/startup personnel not 3 21 20 11 4 1.61 7% 1.20 5%
construction input
65
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
57f. External push-back from 4 14 18 8 9 1.61 11% 1.09 8%
7. Awaiting more industry AWP project 3 9 13 26 8 1.60 12% 0.68 5%
results before implementing
53. Transition from construction by 5 14 23 7 6 1.57 12% 1.20 9%
area to commissioning by system
25. Procurement personnel not 4 17 23 9 4 1.57 9% 1.21 7%
construction input
56h. Internal push-back from 3 15 19 15 2 1.57 8% 1.07 6%
project controls
8. Previous attempt to implement AWP 3 7 13 20 16 1.57 13% 0.61 5%
was considered unsuccessful
33. Maintaining a constraint-free 5 15 28 4 6 1.52 10% 1.26 9%
backlog of IWPs throughout the
project
56l. Internal push-back from foremen 2 9 14 18 11 1.52 8% 0.70 4%
56k. Internal push-back from 2 11 16 14 12 1.52 7% 0.80 4%
general foremen
effectively sequence IWPs well in
advance
46. Do not need AWP because 3 11 20 18 4 1.50 9% 0.91 5%
current project performance/results
are good enough
37. Changes to roles of individuals 3 16 26 7 4 1.49 7% 1.20 5%
when implementing AWP
43. Lack of efficient/on-time 3 12 23 13 5 1.47 8% 1.00 5%
scaffolding management
implementation strategy and project
scope
56n. Internal push-back from 2 11 21 15 2 1.44 6% 0.96 4%
schedulers
15. Contract size does not support 3 11 26 15 4 1.43 8% 0.97 5%
AWP implementation
32. Difficulty in scoping/sizing IWPs 2 13 30 8 5 1.38 4% 1.07 3%
56m. Internal push-back from field crews 1 6 15 19 13 1.36 5% 0.56 2%
6. Company not interested in 0 7 16 26 10 1.30 0% 0.51 0%
implementing AWP
56o. Internal push-back from 1 8 24 13 5 1.30 3% 0.84 2%
cost estimators
66
Appendix D
Contractors’ Ranking of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Score Calculation
3×a + 2×b + 1×c a 3×a + 2×b + 1×c a
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
Barriers in the Survey (Contractors)
others
execution
contractor
construction input
driven
AWP deliverables
among contractors
AWP
67
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
middle management
project managers
enough
superintendents
information
AWP
corporate systems
model
AWP
1. Lack of buy-in 3 6 7 3 0 1.75 19% 1.47 16%
structured process
48. Lack of training 2 9 7 1 0 1.72 11% 1.63 11%
scope
68
Appendix D: Contractors’ Ranking of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
contract type
suppliers
contractor
strategy
change
needed)
general foremen
without IWPs
construction input
sequence
upper management
technology
closing of IWPs
engineers
69
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
construction input
procurement
advance
project
advance
project controls
AWP implementation
are good enough
implementing AWP
subcontractor
schedulers
cost estimators
70
Appendix E
Owners’ Ranking of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Score Calculation
3×a + 2×b + 1×c a 3×a + 2×b + 1×c a
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
Barriers in the Survey (Owners)
among contractors
subcontractor
contractor
corporate systems
48. Lack of training 6 10 7 1 2 1.96 26% 1.73 23%
project managers
sequence
middle management
enough
71
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
1. Lack of buy-in 5 11 9 3 1 1.84 20% 1.59 17%
model
construction input
technology
engineers
others
suppliers
execution
AWP
structured process
without IWPs
contractor
72
Appendix E: Owners’ Ranking of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
procurement
AWP deliverables
superintendents
contract type
closing of IWPs
needed)
strategy
AWP
advance
upper management
AWP
driven
73
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
construction input
project controls
change
are good enough
schedulers
project
general foremen
AWP implementation
construction input
implementing AWP
information
cost estimators
advance
scope
74
Appendix F
Field Office’s Ranking
of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Score Calculation
3×a + 2×b + 1×c a 3×a + 2×b + 1×c a
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
construction input
advance
driven
sequence
change
enough
contractor
subcontractor
75
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
others
execution
strategy
AWP
among contractors
project managers
technology
structured process
corporate systems
AWP deliverables
needed)
contract type
procurement
76
Appendix F: Field Office’s Ranking of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
model
engineers
contractor
upper management
middle management
project controls
construction input
AWP
48. Lack of training 1 4 3 1 0 1.75 13% 1.56 11%
1. Lack of buy-in 1 3 3 2 0 1.71 14% 1.33 11%
advance
project
implementing AWP
scope
77
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
suppliers
closing of IWPs
are good enough
without IWPs
AWP
information
construction input
AWP implementation
schedulers
cost estimators
superintendents
general foremen
78
Appendix G
Home Office’s Ranking
Score Calculation
3×a + 2×b + 1×c a 3×a + 2×b + 1×c a
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
Barriers in the Survey (Home Office)
among contractors
contractor
corporate systems
execution
enough
driven
79
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
AWP deliverables
project managers
48. Lack of training 8 22 14 1 2 1.86 18% 1.74 17%
model
others
sequence
AWP
middle management
construction input
1. Lack of buy-in 9 17 18 5 1 1.80 20% 1.58 18%
needed)
suppliers
superintendents
contractor
80
Appendix G: Home Office’s Ranking of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
information
structured process
without IWPs
AWP
AWP
contract type
upper management
engineers
closing of IWPs
procurement
strategy
technology
construction input
construction input
subcontractor
change
81
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
general foremen
project controls
advance
project
are good enough
advance
schedulers
AWP implementation
scope
cost estimators
implementing AWP
82
Appendix H
High-maturity Companies’ Ranking
Score Calculation
3×a + 2×b + 1×c a 3×a + 2×b + 1×c a
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
contractor
execution
enough
construction input
driven
suppliers
AWP deliverables
83
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
sequence
among contractors
contractor
needed)
model
others
procurement
AWP
AWP
subcontractor
construction input
information
change
84
Appendix H: High-maturity Companies’ Ranking of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
engineers
structured process
corporate systems
48. Lack of training 2 5 7 1 0 1.64 14% 1.53 13%
advance
project managers
general foremen
contract type
construction input
AWP
project
are good enough
advance
without IWPs
85
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
strategy
closing of IWPs
upper management
project controls
scope
middle management
technology
superintendents
implementing AWP
schedulers
1. Lack of buy-in 1 2 10 3 0 1.31 8% 1.06 6%
AWP implementation
cost estimators
86
Appendix I
Median-maturity Companies’ Ranking
Score Calculation
3×a + 2×b + 1×c a 3×a + 2×b + 1×c a
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
Barriers in the Survey (Median Maturity)
among contractors
corporate systems
contractor
project managers
sequence
others
execution
87
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
enough
model
driven
middle management
AWP deliverables
48. Lack of training 4 14 8 1 1 1.85 15% 1.71 14%
needed)
AWP
AWP
construction input
1. Lack of buy-in 4 11 9 4 1 1.79 17% 1.48 14%
superintendents
closing of IWPs
without IWPs
project controls
88
Appendix I: Median-maturity Companies’ Ranking of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
structured process
subcontractor
suppliers
procurement
technology
contract type
change
engineers
strategy
schedulers
construction input
AWP
information
construction input
89
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
contractor
advance
project
upper management
AWP implementation
are good enough
advance
general foremen
scope
cost estimators
implementing AWP
90
Appendix J
Low-maturity Companies’ Ranking
Score Calculation
3×a + 2×b + 1×c a 3×a + 2×b + 1×c a
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
Barriers in the Survey (Low Maturity)
cost estimators
implementing AWP
are good enough
enough
AWP
general foremen
advance
middle management
scope
AWP
91
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
AWP
contract type
among contractors
corporate systems
model
driven
project managers
contractor
suppliers
execution
engineers
92
Appendix J: Low-maturity Companies’ Ranking of Top Barriers Identified in the Survey
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
structured process
contractor
project
without IWPs
strategy
1. Lack of buy-in 1 3 2 2 5 1.83 17% 0.85 8%
others
construction input
upper management
48. Lack of training 2 4 4 0 3 1.80 20% 1.38 15%
AWP implementation
AWP deliverables
change
93
Moderate
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Minor
Major
None
N/A
subcontractor
information
project controls
sequence
needed)
construction input
advance
technology
construction input
closing of IWPs
superintendents
schedulers
procurement
94
Appendix K
Summary of Interviews
Company A (owner)
Background
Company A uses AWP in two major divisions: Oil & Gas and Energy. Since these are
two different departments, they have slightly different AWP procedures. The interviewee
was in the Oil & Gas division, so all of the information provided refers to that sector.
The company started implementing AWP three years ago, focusing primarily on
EPC projects, and has completed The first project where AWP was implemented.
Currently the company is working on documenting the AWP process, finding an IT
solution that fits the company’s needs, and developing an in-house training program.
Barriers to Implementation
• The first barrier the interviewee mentioned was how to determine AWP
scalability. Implementing AWP in different project sizes is a challenge, mainly
with smaller projects.
• The company struggled to find the best software to support AWP process;
the interviewee saw this as a barrier.
• The interviewee also mentioned finding qualified resources to execute AWP,
especially developing IWPs.
• Another barrier was identifying value in allocating resources for AWP
implementation, which means that one challenge involves determining the
number of staff members to dedicate to AWP to keep the project competitive.
Actions to Overcome the Barriers

• One action the interviewee suggested to overcome implementation barriers
was to integrate construction and design teams early in the project.
• Along with that, use the AWP model based on geographic area packages
and not by discipline. In other words, categorize elements by the area to
which they belong.
• Educate staff on AWP, particularly foremen and superintendents. This would
help them understand the benefits of AWP and also increase company buy-in.
• Perform in-house training. The trainings should be based on CII study
materials and the client’s requirements.
• Another action that could solve some barriers was to require all projects to
use the Workface Planner.
95
How to Promote AWP

• The interviewee mentioned providing metrics and case studies. Case studies
support the business decision making and can increase AWP buy-in.
• It is also valuable to use benchmarks and understand how to improve the
AWP process.
• The interviewee also recommended educating subcontractors in a way to
demonstrate AWP benefits.
Company B (owner)
Background
Company B started its AWP efforts in 2016. The company applied AWP in pilot
projects and now is implementing AWP on its usual projects. The company does not
require the use of AWP in its projects, but lets the manager decide whether or not
to implement it. An in-house training program promotes AWP procedures within the
company.
• The main barrier the interviewee mentioned was the perceived cost
associated with implementing AWP. This means that the company is fully
aware of the initial cost to implement AWP but is unaware of the savings that
AWP will create by the end of the project.
• Another problem was the lack of AWP education understanding, which leads
to a buy-in resistance.
• The interviewee also mentioned a lack of AWP standardization as a barrier.
The interviewee focused on standards AWP process flow, nomenclature, and
data processes.

• One of the actions proposed to overcome the barriers was to perform training.
• Another solution for increasing company buy-in was to increase AWP
education, as the AWP benefits would be promoted through education.
How to Promote AWP

The interviewee offered two recommendations for promoting AWP at the industry
level:
• Create AWP standards.
• Research how to better integrate AWP with CSU and procurement.
96
Appendix K: Summary of Interviews
Company C (contractor)
Background
Company C began implementing AWP in pilot projects. Its first fully AWP project
should be completed in 2022. Once that project is complete, the company intends to
assess the benefits of AWP. The company intends to apply AWP on all sizes of projects,
and currently is working on defining its scalability.
The interviewee mentioned the following main barriers:
• A lack of understanding regarding AWP practices, especially by some
managers.
• The interviewee linked this lack of understanding to a resistance to change
former procedures.
• The interviewee stated that the company did not see the benefits of
investing in implementing AWP and did not have buy-in regarding AWP
implementation.
• From the owner’s perspective, there was a feeling that AWP did not fit in
lump sum contacts.
• The interviewee listed another barrier as major—the lack of alignment
between procurement and AWP procedures.

• The interviewee suggested that one way to overcome barriers was to nominate
an AWP champion. Implementing AWP requires a person who is exclusively
responsible to make sure the procedures are functioning well and all of the
phases are aligned.
How to Implement AWP

• The interviewee recommended that CII could provide more metrics and case
studies. This would help promote AWP benefits and thereby increase the buy-
in to invest in AWP implementation.
97
Company D (contractor)
Background
Company D has implemented AWP on pilot projects and has completed one fully
AWP project. Currently, it is working with a consultant to develop AWP in-house training.
The company is actively looking for IT solutions to support the AWP program.
• Lack of recognition of AWP benefits is considered a major barrier. The
company needs education to highlight the potential profits from AWP. Not
understanding the benefits of AWP implementation interferes in the company’s
support for implementing AWP on projects.
• Lack of alignment with the subcontractor was mentioned as a barrier.
• The interviewee stated that there was a need to define AWP scalability and
how to implement it in smaller projects. The company is not sure how to
make AWP cost effective for smaller projects.

• A need the interviewee was cited to change the culture between engineering
and construction. One example of this change is that engineering should work-
package in a way that is more efficient for construction, not for engineering.
• The owner should drive adoption by making AWP a requirement. This would
stimulate contractors to implement AWP.
How to Promote AWP

• The interviewee affirmed that an efficient way to promote AWP at industry level
is by providing a roadmap on how to change culture and drivers of culture.
98
Company E (owner)
Background
Company E works internationally with upstream lump sum contracts. It began its
AWP journey in 2014, when the company started implementing AWP in pilot projects,
using an AWP procedure it had developed based on the work CII Research Team 272.
Currently the company’s first fully AWP project is in progress, and it should finish in 2023.
The company has used AWP on all sizes of projects and in all locations, demonstrating
that it has already defined AWP scalability. The company has also created its own
Center of Excellence for AWP, which supports every project that implements AWP.
• When working internationally, contractors use the principle of AWP, although it
does not follow any standards. Therefore, the interviewee considers the lack
of standardization for international contractors a barrier.
• Another barrier, from an owner’s perspective, is implementing AWP in a lump
sum contract. The owner does not have access to man-hour data, so it is hard
to measure accurately the benefits of AWP in man-hours.
• Defining metrics for the owner when working in a lump sum contract was
seen as a barrier.
• Another barrier mentioned was the lack of alignment between AWP and
procurement.

• When implementing AWP, an action that would help overcome barriers and
avoid struggles is to clarify AWP expectations in the contract.
How to Promote AWP

• According to the interviewee, providing metrics and processes that quantify
the AWP benefits in an EPC lump sum contract would be a valuable way
to promote AWP at the industry level.
99
Company F (owner)
Background
The interview focused on integrating AWP with materials management. At that
time, the company was working on building a team to interface with the engineering,
construction, and purchasing functions. The main goal was to tie all parties involved
in construction to the AWP program.
• Contracts do not specify enough data-reporting requirements. The
interviewee saw this as a barrier, since information may not be received for
timely AWP implementation.
• Other barriers mentioned included the silos among project teams. The
different levels of AWP implementation across functions make it a challenge
to obtain alignment for successful AWP implementation.
• The company presented a resistance to changing its procedures in order
to implement AWP. This, too, was related to the company’s culture.
• The contractor’s low AWP maturity was also listed as a barrier. The
subcontractor did not have the same AWP maturity as the contractor; hence,
data management was inefficient. Data were not provided in a timely manner,
which harmed construction.
• Another barrier was the lack of standardization of AWP definitions. The
interviewee claimed that each company used its own terms and standards,
which interfered in alignment among the companies.

Some actions the interviewee cited to overcome the barriers included the following:
• Restructure the contract to provide more data in a timely manner, to
support the AWP implementation.
• Improve communication to reduce silos among teams.
• Educate suppliers in AWP in order to obtain standards of definitions,
procedures, and data management.
How to Promote AWP

• The interviewee stated that presenting case studies was a way to promote
AWP at the industry level. Case studies prove the benefits of AWP and justify
the investment that is being done, therefore increasing buy-in.
100
Company G (contractor)
Background
Company G had an established AWP process. The AWP program was developed
and contained documents like an AWP playbook, AWP implementation plan, and AWP
architecture plan. The company had already fully implemented AWP on projects and
the AWP program was in an operational phase.
• The interviewee mentioned that some owners do not fully understand AWP,
which and can lead to misalignment between the parties.
• Some owners are cost- and schedule-driven. As AWP requires more
investment in the earlier phases of a project, sometimes owners reject AWP
implementation due to the perceived implementation cost.
• Defining AWP scalability was also mentioned as a barrier. Applying AWP to
smaller projects can be a challenge, considering implementation cost are high.
• Acquiring an efficient data management program for large projects is also
a challenge. The company needs robust IT solution to manage large amounts
of data.

• The first action suggested to overcome barriers was to educate clients on
AWP. This would help them recognize AWP value and show them how to have
a successful implementation.
• Performing training was also seen as a solution to overcome implementation
barriers.
• In order to overcome the resistance to change from engineering, the interviewee
suggested obtaining management buy-in, because if AWP were supported
from the top down, engineering would be more receptive to changes, thus
making a successful implementation more likely.
How to Promote AWP

• In order to promote AWP at the industry level, the interviewee recommended
providing more recent AWP data, as well as studies focused on materials
management. It is critical to have material on site in a timely manner. Therefore,
studies are necessary to ensure that this happens.
101
Company H (owner)
Background
Company H has been in contact with AWP for several years and it is familiar with
CII’s AWP studies. The company has already implemented AWP on pilot projects and
its first fully AWP project will be completed on 2022.
• Considering that Company H has a large staff, the interviewee mentioned
that one challenge was performing AWP training for large numbers of
employees. It is simply hard to manage a large number of people.
• Alignment between EWP and construction sequencing was an issue. The
company struggled to design AWPs that matched CWP and IWP.
• Lack of alignment between procurement and AWP led the interviewee to
see the transition from an area focus to a system focus as a barrier.
• The contractor’s low AWP maturity was also mentioned. This was due to
the lack of AWP understanding from the contractor’s side.

• The interviewee mentioned overcoming barriers by performing fit-to-purpose
training.
How to Promote AWP

• Training and education were the interviewee’s recommendations on how to
promote AWP at the industry level.
102
Company I (contractor)
Background
Company I had more than five years of experience with AWP. At the time of the
interview, senior management was focused on maturing the AWP program. As an
example of management efforts, Company I was digitally formalizing AWP integration
across engineering, procurement, and construction. AWP was applied in all business
lines of the company and it was part of the required process. AWP was supported and
promoted at the corporate level.
• One of the barriers the interviewee pointed to was the fact that the owner did
not explicitly state AWP requirements in the contract.
• The lack of oversight from the owner on AWP procedures was linked
with previous barriers and also mentioned as a challenge for the AWP
implementation.
• Lack of alignment between engineering, procurement, and construction
was seen as one of the main barriers faced during the company’s implementation
of AWP.

• Performing training for staff and clients was mentioned as the main action
to overcome barriers.
How to Promote AWP

• Creating an AWP standard practice for suppliers and improving
exchanging data management between contractor and supplier were
mentioned as ways to promote AWP at the industry level.
103
Company J (owner)
Background
Most of the work was performed in projects with total installed costs up to $100
million dollars. Traditional workface planner is part of the company’s procedures. In
order to develop an AWP program, the company has been working with consultants for
three years. The company is formalizing procedures and practices and is developing
an AWP protocol. The company is applying AWP in pilot projects.
• Resistance to change was seen as one of the major barriers. Staff agreed
with AWP concepts, but were not willing to go through the changes required to
have a successful implementation.
• This barrier was also connected to a lack of understanding on how to
implement it efficiently.
• Another barrier was that the construction strategy was not aligned with
AWP implementation.

• Documenting the procedures of AWP application in light of the project’s
timeline was mentioned as one action to overcome barriers.
• Providing training for owners and contractors was another suggested
action.
• Along with the training, investing in technology could lead to a smoother
implementation. the interviewee recommended.
How to Promote AWP

• Creating standards on how to implement AWP, standardizing methods, and
improving benchmarking could help promote AWP at the industry level.
104
Notes
105
Research Team DCC-04,
Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging
Rob Bailey, Day & Zimmermann
Santiago Barrera Ramirez, Worley
Jim Blevins, Pathfinder, LLC
Adam Bozick, Victaulic
* Carlos Caldas, The University of Texas at Austin
John Coombs, Union Carbide Corporation
Kim Crovetto, Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Kirt Currie, LyondellBasell
Daniel De Marco, thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (USA), Inc.
Kevin Ellis, Autodesk, Inc.
Kasey Faust, The University of Texas at Austin
Jamie Gerbrecht, ExxonMobil Corporation
Kirk Harris, Black & Veatch
Chehade Kassouf, Consolidated Contractors Company
Mike King, Black & Veatch
Mark Lambert, Eastman Chemical Company, Vice Chair
Silvana Lara, Fluor Corporation
Chuck Mies, Autodesk, Inc.
Robin Mikaelsson, Construct-X, LLC, Chair
Neil Nunez, Bechtel Group, Inc.
Tony Oda, Jacobs
Jason Owens, Motiva Enterprises, LLC
Jack Parent, ExxonMobil Corporation
Jake Perry, ExxonMobil Corporation
Todd Pfennig, APTIM
Levi Quelland, Albemarle Corporation
* Neuton Rebeiro Neto, The University of Texas at Austin
* Principal authors
Editor: Michael E. Burns

3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316
FR-DCC-04
Advanced Work Packaging
Phase 2
Final Report 365

CII Member Companies
Owners Contractors Service Providers

AdvanSix AECOM Accenture
Albemarle Corporation Alfred Miller Contracting Alvarez & Marsal
American Transmission Company LLC APTIM ASITE, LLC
Anheuser-Busch InBev Arcadis U.S., Inc Atlas RFID Solutions
Aramco Services Company Baker Concrete Construction Inc. Autodesk, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company Barton Malow Company AVEVA Solutions Ltd.
Architect of the Capitol Bechtel Group, Inc. Bentley Systems Inc.
Ascend Performance Materials Black & Veatch Command Alkon Inc.
AstraZeneca Brown & Root Industrial Services Construct-X, LLC
BHP Billiton Burns & McDonnell Continuum Advisory Group
Cargill, Inc. Chiyoda Corporation Dassault Systèmes SE
Chevron Clough USA Inc. Deloitte
ConocoPhillips CRB Design + Construction Strategies
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Day & Zimmermann Detect Technologies
Covestro LLC Digital Construction Works DyCat Solutions
DTE Energy Emerson ePM
Eastman Chemical Company Fluor Corporation Group ASI
Entergy Corporation H+M Industrial EPC Hexagon Process Power & Marine
ExxonMobil Corporation Hargrove Engineers + Constructors Hilti Corporation
General Electric Company Hatch I.M.P.A.C.T.
GlaxoSmithKline Jacobs iConstruct
Global Infrastructure Partners JGC Corporation Insight-AWP Inc.
Honeywell International Inc. KBR O3 Solutions
INEOS Group Holdings S. A. Kiewit Corporation Oracle USA, Inc.
Irving Oil Limited M&H Enterprises (Energy Services) Pathfinder, LLC
Johnson & Johnson Matrix Service Company PTAG, Inc.
Kaiser Permanente McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. T. A. Cook Consultants Inc.
Koch Industries, Inc. McDermott International, Inc. Trillium Advisory Group Ltd
Los Alamos National Laboratory Midwest Steel, Inc. Valency Inc.
LyondellBasell PCL Constructors, Inc. Zurich
Marathon Petroleum Corporation POWER Engineers, Inc.
Motiva Enterprises, LLC Primus Builders, Inc.
National Aeronautics & Space Administration S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command SBM Offshore
NOVA Chemicals Corporation Senaat
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority SNC-Lavalin Constructors Inc.
Nutrien Techint Engineering & Construction
Occidental Petroleum Corporation TechnipFMC plc.
ONEOK, Inc. thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (USA), Inc.
Ontario Power Generation Victaulic
Petronas Wanzek Construction, Inc.
Phillips 66 Wood
Public Service Electric & Gas Company Worley
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) Zachry Group
SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
Shell Global Solutions US Inc.
Smithsonian Institution
Southern Company
TC Energy
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Dow Chemical Company
The Procter & Gamble Company
The Williams Companies, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/EL
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
U.S. General Services Administration
Zachry Corporation
Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)
Phase 2
Research Team 365, Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging –

Phase 2
Final Report 365
October 2020
© 2020 Construction Industry Institute™
CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members
are permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.
Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed, and no modifications may be made
without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies.
Volume discounts may be available.
All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member
prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.
Printed in the United States of America.

Executive Summary
Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) is a construction-driven process that adopts the

philosophy of beginning a project with the end in mind. In 2015, AWP was established
as a CII Best Practice; subsequent case studies have demonstrated its benefits at
improving capital project performance. Nevertheless, AWP’s use is still limited among
owners and contractors.
The objective of RT-365 was to promote the use of AWP at the industry level.
To meet this objective, it was necessary for the team to understand the industry’s
challenges and needs. The team’s approach to promoting the use of AWP was twofold:
• First, it aimed to identify AWP implementation barriers and provide solutions to
overcome them.
• Second, it aimed to facilitate access to AWP implementation resources, such as
reports, case studies, and presentations.
The research was accomplished in four phases:
1. Preparation – delineating the research objectives and methods

2. Data Collection – conducting a literature review and interviews with experts
3. Qualitative Analysis – analyzing data gathered during the second phase
revealed potential solutions to overcome AWP implementation barriers
4. Research Findings and Implementation Resources – synthesizing the
team’s findings and developing an implementation resource
To address the 78 AWP implementation barriers it had identified and analyzed, the
team recommended more than 500 potential solutions. It grouped the most significant
barriers into four categories:
1. The company is not convinced of the benefits of AWP

2. Limited understanding of AWP concepts, processes, and tools
3. Lack of organizational alignment during AWP implementation
4. Poor integration of AWP and engineering processes
The team’s deliverable, the AWP Concierge (SP365-1), included solutions to the
identified AWP implementation barriers. It classified the barriers by phase, starting
with the pre-implementation phase and proceeding to commissioning and startup.
The AWP Concierge also included links to more than 50 supporting documents that
provided additional details on the potential solutions, directly addressing each AWP
implementation barrier and providing opportunities to mitigate it.
iii
Contents
iii
15
23
57
61
65
69
77
79
85
87
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
According to CII Research Team 272 (RT-272), Advanced Work Packaging (AWP)
is a construction-driven process that follows the philosophy of beginning a project with
the end in mind. AWP promotes a disciplined approach to project execution planning. It
holds the promise of improving the capital project delivery process. AWP is the outcome
of research CII started in 2009 to develop a project lifecycle execution method based
on workface planning and work packaging concepts. In 2015, following the publication
of reports by RT-272 and RT-319, CII recognized AWP as a CII Best Practice.
CII Research Teams 272 and 319 demonstrated a strong relationship between AWP
implementation and higher project performance. Their publications reported numerous
benefits from implementing AWP:
• Improved safety awareness and performance
• Reduced cost through improved labor productivity and reduced rework
• Improved overall project predictability for cost and schedule
• Better alignment among stakeholders from planning through construction
• Improved overall project quality
Importantly, the structured approach to planning potentially improves project safety

performance (CII/COAA 2013, CII/COAA 2013a, CII/COAA 2013b, CII/COAA 2015,
CII/COAA 2015a).
Even though AWP became a CII Best Practice in 2015 and subsequent case
studies have verified that it improves construction efficiency, its use is still limited
among owners and contractors. In fact, only a few companies use AWP from front
end planning to startup. Clearly, there is a need for measures that promote the use of
AWP at the industry level.
CII commissioned several research teams to study how the construction industry
has adopted AWP and to provide recommendations on how to promote the use of
AWP. One of these teams dedicated to AWP was RT-DCC-04, whose aim was to
promote the use of AWP at the industry level. RT-DCC-04 identified implementation
barriers that prevented companies from commencing their own AWP journeys and
from experiencing the many improvements that AWP brings to project performance.
The findings of RT-DCC-04 were highly relevant to efforts to promote AWP at the
industry level.
1
Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) – Phase 2
The RT-365 research continued the work of RT-DCC-04. RT-365 aimed to

recommend strategies to overcome the implementation barriers identified in FR-DCC-04
(CII 2020) and produce content that helped companies implement AWP. RT-365
endeavored to do this by identifying solutions to AWP implementation barriers and
by addressing two major improvement opportunities: the need for easier access to
AWP resources and the need to improve integration between AWP and engineering.
Research Objectives
The purpose of this RT-365 research was to support owners and contractors as
they try to implement AWP throughout a project’s lifecycle. The research goals were
connected to promoting the use of AWP at the industry level. The team aimed to
develop valuable content that addressed the improvement opportunities identified in
FR-DCC-04 (CII 2020). The main research objectives were as follow:
• Identify solutions and strategies to overcome the barriers for successful AWP
implementation.
• Provide recommendations to enhance integration between engineering and AWP.
• Help uncover opportunities related to the “people,” “process,” and “technology”
aspects of AWP implementation that can be leveraged to improve the utilization
of AWP.
The findings from this research should help companies in the early phases of the
AWP journey, as well as those at a higher AWP maturity level.
This report consists of seven chapters:

• Chapter 1 contextualizes the research and introduces the research objectives,
scope, and report structure.
• Chapter 2 presents the research methods, detailing the research process.
• Chapter 3 summarizes results from the collected data (from expert interviews
and available AWP resources).
• Chapter 4 presents the recommendations to enhance integration between
engineering and AWP.
• Chapter 5 offers potential solutions to overcome AWP implementation barriers.
• Chapter 6 is an overview of the AWP Concierge – an interactive document that
combines the findings from Chapters 4 and 5 into a user-friendly layout.
• Chapter 7 presents the conclusion of this research, highlighting what succeeded
and recommending topics for future research.
2
Chapter 2
Methods
Overview
This chapter presents the methods RT-365 used to develop recommendations
for overcoming barriers to implementing AWP, including barriers related to enhancing
the integration between AWP and engineering. This chapter also explains the team’s
efforts to catalog AWP resources that led to developing the AWP Concierge. Figure 1
illustrates the research methods for this research.
Preparation Data Collection Qualitative Research

Analysis Findings and
Implementation
Identify Resource
Delineate Conduct Strategies to
Research Semi-structured Overcome AWP
Objectives and Expert Implementation
Scope Interviews Barriers
Develop the
AWP Concierge
Define Review Provide
Research Literature Recommendations
Methods to Enhance AWP
and Engineering
Integration
Figure 1. Research Methodology
Preparation Phase
During the Preparation phase, RT-365 defined the work objectives and scope. The
researchers aligned these objectives with efforts already made by RT-DCC-04. They
divided the research methodology into four phases:
1. Preparation 3. Qualitative Analysis
2. Data Collection 4. Research Findings and Implementation Resource
They also identified the specific tasks required to accomplish their objectives:
1. Gathering and analyzing interview data from experts
2. Cataloging relevant AWP resources
3. Providing solutions to potential AWP implementation barriers
4. Developing a set of recommendations on how to enhance integration
between engineering and AWP
5. Developing an AWP Concierge
3
Data Collection Phase

The Data Collection phase was composed of reviewing the literature and conducting
semi-structured expert interviews, done simultaneously. Combining these activities
enabled the researchers to identify potential solutions to the implementation barriers
and to develop recommendations on how to enhance integration between engineering
and AWP.
• The primary focus of the literature review was to identify relevant AWP resources.
This included the identification of critical AWP publications, cases studies, expert
interviews, and conference presentations. (Chapter 3 provides further details on
the literature review.)
• The team conducted interviews with industry experts to get a better understanding
of the issues that prevented a proper alignment between engineering and AWP.
These semi-structured interviews provided insight into how companies might
be supported as they integrate AWP with their engineering. The interviewees
were selected based on recommendations from members of RT-365 and
RT-DCC-04 (the two phases of this research). The interviewees were industry
members who were active in the AWP community and who had demonstrated
expertise on this topic. During this second phase of the research, members of
RT-365 conducted 12 interviews. The selected interviewees held a variety of
positions (including AWP Center of Excellence Lead, Project Director, Head of
Engineering Department, Project Managers, Piping Design Leader, and others)
and represented 11 different companies (shown in Table 1).
Table 1. Companies that Participated in the Interviews
Owners Contractors
ExxonMobil Corporation Bechtel Group, Inc.
Shell Global Solutions US Inc. Black & Veatch
Eastman Chemical Company Day and Zimmermann
Ford, Bacon & Davis
GlaxoSmithKline
Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Matrix Service Company
Worley
4
2. Methods
The interviews were structured so as to capture the barriers that influenced the
integration of AWP and engineering, and to identify possible solutions to these barriers.
The interviews addressed the following main topics:
1. A description of the organization’s process to develop AWP

2. A comparison of AWP projects and non-AWP projects from an engineering
perspective
3. The company’s efforts to develop its own AWP program, rather than using
the owner’s AWP processes
4. Challenges to implementing AWP with regard to different contract types and
how AWP affected the contracting strategy
All interviews were conducted using The University of Texas at Austin’s phone
conference system. As part of a non-disclosure agreement, the interviewers omitted
any information that could identify the interviewee. The interviews were recorded to
facilitate the qualitative analysis of topics addressed by the expert, and a transcription
software converted each recording into a text document.
Qualitative Analysis Phase

The Qualitative Analysis phase aimed at producing two outcomes: identifying
potential solutions to overcome AWP implementation barriers, and distilling
recommendations on how to enhance the integration of AWP and engineering. During
this phase, the resources identified in the literature review and the data gathered by the
expert interviews underwent a qualitative analysis (QA). This QA focused on identifying
issues that prevented engineering companies from successfully implementing AWP
and on pinpointing actions that could facilitate alignment of engineering and AWP.
(Chapter 4 details these recommendations.)
According to Maher et al., QA is a non-linear and recursive process made up of three

parts: 1. noticing, 2. collecting data, and 3. analyzing data. The three primary coding
methods are open, axial, and selective coding. This work focuses on open coding as
it is used to analyze the data collected (Maher et al. 2018). According to Corbin and
Strauss, open coding is the continuous comparison and classification of phenomena,
cases, and concepts (Corbin and Strauss 2015). Clarke and Braun affirmed that coding
is a process that involves generating succinct labels for relevant aspects of the data.
A crucial step to the QA is defining the theme and the thematic analysis. According
to Clarke and Braun, a theme is a coherent and meaningful pattern in the data, and
thematic analysis is a method for identifying and analyzing patterns in qualitative data
(Clarke and Braun 2013).
5
Using the general QA process discussed, the RT-365 researchers analyzed the
interview data and then either mapped implementation barriers to AWP-relevant
resources or identified potential solutions to overcome AWP implementation barriers.
(Chapter 5 details the data analysis process.) Table 2 gives an example of mapping a
barrier to an example of an excerpt.
Table 2. Example of a Qualitative Analysis: Expert Interview
Process Example of Process
Step 1. Selecting the Example Resource Selected:

Resource Company A interview, collected during Phase 1 of
this research but not published verbatim (CII 2020)
Step 2. Analyzing the Example Excerpt Identified in Resource Selected in

Resource Step 1:
“So the data integrity in the model. And I will give you
a really good example: if you have a control valve,
the CV 101, and it says it is a CV 101 on the pin ID,
it better say it is a CV 101 in the model, a CV 101 in
the purchase order, a CV 101 on the ISO, so that the
field planner can look to see, ‘Do I have CV 101?’”
And what happens is in some cases it is ‘CV dash
101,’ it is ‘CV101.’ It can be any variation therein, and
the tags do not match.”
Step 3. Coding the Data Code from Step 2 Excerpt:

Integrity of the data is essential.
Step 4. Mapping Codes Code in Step 3 Is Relevant to the Barrier:

to the Barrier Lack of attributes in the design model
Step 5. Validation Validated Analysis:

All of the barriers and codes have been checked and
validated by members of RT-365.
6
2. Methods
The research team used the QA process rigorously and objectively to identify
relevant barriers in the data:
• In Step 1, the team selected the resource, in this case an expert interview from
Phase 1 of this research.
• In Step 2, the team read the transcription, so its content was fully analyzed and
comprehended. This step confirmed that the document contained information
relevant to the research.
• In Step 3, the team defined succinct codes that were aligned with the QA goals.
Excerpts were tagged to these codes.
• In Step 4, the team categorized the codes according to relevant barriers.
• By using subject matter experts to ensure that the findings were coherent and
consistent, in Step 5 the researchers validated the reliability of the codes and
barriers they had developed.
Research Findings and Implementation Resource

Chapter 6 details the Research Findings and Implementation Resource phase,
including an overview of the interactive document that RT-365 developed: the AWP
Concierge. The team developed this tool based on the findings summarized in
Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. The AWP Concierge is a summation of the findings
from identifying potential solutions and from collecting recommendations on how to
enhance integration between AWP and engineering. It presents the content in an
organized and user-friendly format.
7
Chapter 3
Background Information
Developing the RT-365 research was facilitated by a literature review that focused
on five relevant topics:
1. AWP maturity model
2. AWP practices and components
3. Potential AWP implementation barriers
4. Opportunity areas to promote the use of AWP at the industry level
5. Qualitative analysis
AWP Maturity Model

RT-272 developed an AWP maturity model (detailed in CII/COAA 2013a). A company
or project can assess its state of AWP implementation by using this maturity model,
which is divided into five dimensions and three levels of implementation maturity
(shown in Table 3).
Table 3. Make-up of the AWP Maturity Model (CII/COAA 2013a)
Dimensions Levels
1. View of AWP Level 1: AWP Early Stages
2. Project AWP Strategy Level 2: AWP Effectiveness
3. Work Processes and Deliverables
Level 3: AWP Business
4. Organizational Culture and Transformation
Performance Metrics
5. Training and Support
CII then commissioned RT-319 to validate AWP as a CII Best Practice. The team
developed and applied an AWP maturity model to rate a set of industrial projects.
Although it was inspired by RT-272’s model, RT-319’s maturity model differed in its
maturity dimensions and maturity levels. RT-319 calculated its maturity levels by
measuring the diligence of AWP adoption according to three maturity dimensions:
1. Adherence to prescribed procedures

2. Alignment between execution plans and associated discipline-specific work
packaging deliverables
3. Inclusion of AWP guidelines in key participants’ contracts
9
To assess maturity, the RT-319 researchers used six indicators – two per maturity
dimension. RT-319’s maturity model calculated the AWP maturity level as the geometric
average of the scores of these six indicators.
RT-DCC-04 found that the AWP maturity level of a company influenced the types
of barriers that the company could face during the AWP implementation journey.
Therefore, an understanding of the AWP maturity model was necessary in order to
develop potential solutions that fit all AWP maturity levels.
AWP Practices and Components

RT-365’s AWP practices and components were based on the material and tools of
RT-272 (CII/COAA 2013, CII/COAA 2013a, CII/COAA 2013b). RT-365 analyzed all of
the questions in the assessment tools and scorecards to ensure that AWP practices
and components were identified.
AWP Audit Tool by Phase

The AWP Audit Tool by Phase that RT-272 developed was meant to assess conformity
to AWP processes at each stage of a project. Designed primarily to be used by the
owner, it can also be used by other parties to identify gaps in AWP implementation.
The complete version of the tool can be found in Implementation Resource 272-2,
Volume II (CII/COAA 2013a).
Workface Planning Scorecard

During its creation of the Audit Tool by Phase, RT-272 used the Workface Planning
Scorecard developed by COAA as a reference (COAA 2013). Although RT-272 did not
include some items from the COAA Workface Planning Scorecard in its Audit Tool by
Phase, these items might be relevant to RT-DCC-04 (CII 2020). The complete version
of the tool can be found in IR272-2, Volume II (CII/COAA 2013a).
RT-272 Case Study Questionnaire

RT-272 presented a questionnaire about AWP practices and components. Its binary
yes/no questions focused on project background and characteristics, workface planning
practices, and project performance. Notably, the questionnaire left space for comments.
The complete questionnaire can be found in IR272-2, Volume III (CII/COAA 2013b).
RT-272 AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool

The AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool helps project teams assess readiness
before implementing AWP in a specific project. The score of the questions is divided
into five levels. The complete version of the tool can be found in IR272-2, Volume II
(CII/COAA 2013a).
10
3. Background Information
Potential AWP Implementation Barriers

This section presents a summary of RT-365’s review of potential AWP barriers. It
lists barriers that RT-272 identified at the 2012 COAA Best Practices Conference and
others that RT-319 identified, as well as more recent input by members of RT-DCC-04.
RT-365 analyzed all of the barriers identified in these sources and created a summary
of them.

RT-272 conducted interviews with subject matter experts to identify perceived
challenges to AWP implementation. The most common difficulties identified in the
interviews related to lack of alignment, change inertia, lack of buy-in, lack of experience
and training, and lack of interorganizational coordination (CII/COAA 2013b).
Barriers RT-272 Presented at the 2012 COAA Best Practices Conference

During the 2012 COAA Best Practices Conference, RT-272 presented the results
of a survey that highlighted the barriers that the industry faced in implementing AWP
(COAA 2012):
• A lack of clear implementation strategy
• Inconsistent terminology
• The need for standardization of work packaging
• A lack of guidelines around AWP implementation

RT-319 identified the primary difficulties faced during AWP implementation, with
the most common being change inertia, lack of buy-in, lack of scope freeze, late
engineering deliverables, and imperfect control process. Details can be found in the
publications of RT-319 (CII/COAA 2015; CII/COAA 2015a; O’Brien and Ponticelli 2016).
Barriers Identified by RT-DCC-04

At its kick-off meeting (January 23–24, 2019), RT-DCC-04 brainstormed a preliminary
list of barrier categories. This list was based on the experience of team members and
the team used it to compose a final list of barriers for the survey. RT-DCC-04 then
combined the list it had brainstormed with other barrier lists identified in the publications
of RT-272 and RT-319, and in presentations given to the 2012 COAA Best Practices
Conference (COAA 2012). The final barrier list RT-DCC-04 developed (shown in
Table 4 on the next page) summarizes the resulting 78 implementation barriers, which
related to contracting strategy, engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning
and startup, company culture, and staff support of AWP implementation.
11
12
Table 4. AWP Implementation Barriers

Lack of buy-in Procurement personnel not available to provide timely Poor integration of AWP information system with other
Lack of AWP champion or leadership path of construction input corporate systems
Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and Engineering design sequence not able to match Lack of attributes in the design model
processes construction sequence Manual or paper-based IWP management system is
Expectation of limited (or no) benefits to company Late AWP implementation inefficient for the project size
from AWP Inconsistency in AWP implementation due to lack of Transition from construction by area to commissioning
Cost to implement structured process by system
Company not interested in implementing AWP Need (or perceived need) for additional project team AWP program is not owner-driven
members for AWP Lack of financial incentives to improve execution
Awaiting more industry AWP project results before
implementing “Silos” among project team groups limit integration efficiency
Too many unknowns to effectively sequence IWPs well Internal push-back from upper management
Previous attempt to implement AWP was considered
unsuccessful in advance Internal push-back from middle management
Lack of ongoing alignment between owner, Difficulty in scoping and sizing IWPs Internal push-back from project managers
contractors, suppliers, and others Maintaining a constraint-free backlog of IWPs Internal push-back from information management/
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation throughout the project technology
strategy and field execution Difficulty with ongoing tracking/closing of IWPs Internal push-back from design engineering
Lack of alignment between AWP and front end Belief that experienced field leadership and crews can management
planning construct without IWPs Internal push-back from design engineers
Contractor does not buy in early enough Current company processes would have to be revised Internal push-back from procurement
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation to include AWP Internal push-back from project controls
strategy and contract type Changes to roles of individuals when implementing Internal push-back from construction managers
Owner does not include clear AWP requirements in AWP
Internal push-back from superintendents
the contract Difficulty in making AWP fit-for-purpose on various
sizes of projects Internal push-back from general foremen
Contract size does not support AWP implementation
Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP Internal push-back from foremen
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation
strategy and field strategy Lack of interorganizational coordination following a Internal push-back from field crews
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation scope change Internal push-back from schedulers
strategy and project scope Project controls not aligned with AWP Internal push-back from cost estimators
Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP Materials management and logistics issues (materials External push-back from owner
Owner engages contractors too late to effectively to the workface) External push-back from engineering design contractor
implement AWP Lack of efficient and on-time scaffolding management External push-back from engineering design/
Owner late in furnishing items or information Current company culture does not fully support AWP procurement contractor
Progress payments not linked to AWP deliverables Misperception that company already performs AWP (no External push-back from engineering design/
change needed) procurement/construction contractor
Construction company not available to provide timely
path of construction input Do not need AWP because current project External push-back from construction management
performance/results are good enough contractor
Too many unknowns to effectively sequence CWPs
well in advance Weaknesses in overall AWP organization/coordination External push-back from construction contractor
Turnover/startup personnel not available to provide Lack of training External push-back from subcontractor
timely path of construction input Low level of AWP maturity among contractors External push-back from suppliers
3. Background Information
Top AWP Implementation Barriers per Company Maturity Level

After developing a list of potential AWP implementation barriers, RT-DCC-04
conducted a survey. The maturity model presented in this survey was based on RT-272’s
maturity model. This survey sought to achieve two goals:
1. RT-DCC-04 wanted to identify the main barriers that companies face.

Each respondent was asked to classify each barrier’s impact on AWP
implementation as major, minor, moderate, or none. To rank the barriers,
the researchers calculated a score that measured each barrier’s perceived
impact on project performance, where the highest score represented the
highest impact on AWP implementation.
2. The survey also asked each respondent to indicate his or her company’s
perceived AWP maturity level. The team sought to divide the companies
into three categories of maturity: higher, medium, and lower. The
researchers classified the barriers respondents used to reflect their self-
identified maturity levels. This classification allowed the researchers to
assess which types of barriers affected companies at each level of AWP
implementation maturity.
In this way, RT-DCC-04 was able to analyze the relationship between the barrier
categories and a company’s maturity level. The results indicated that two topics needed
more attention:
1. Improving the integration of engineering and AWP implementation (which is

discussed in the next chapter)
resources (which Chapter 5 discusses)
13
Chapter 4
Enhancing Integration between Engineering and AWP
RT-365 aimed to better understand the factors that jeopardize alignment between
AWP and engineering, and to know how to overcome these issues. To do so, it conducted
interviews with industry experts. The team used the findings from the qualitative data
analysis of semi-structured expert interviews to develop its recommendations to
enhance integration between AWP and engineering. The results also contributed to
finding potential solutions.
Recommendations to Enhance the Integration of AWP and Engineering

Qualitative analysis (QA) shed light on the issues that may prevent engineering
companies from implementing AWP and from fully exploiting the AWP benefits. Further,
QA suggested measures that may help companies overcome an issue or mitigate its
impact on project performance. The list below presents the topics RT-365 identified
as potential issues:
• Engineering companies’ familiarity with AWP benefits, concepts, and process
• Engineering company misperceives that its processes are compliant with AWP
• Impact of contract type on AWP implementation
• Perceived change in engineering work sequence
• Construction expertise input to develop the path of construction
• Aligning engineering deliverables with construction sequencing
• Developing engineering schedule based on AWP deliverables
• Tracking the progress of engineering deliverables based on AWP deliverables
• Lack of tools and data standardization
• Lack of attributes in the design model
The following section describes each of these topics.
15
Engineering companies’ familiarity with AWP benefits, concepts, and

processes
Despite the fact that CII has recognized AWP as a CII Best Practice, some
engineering companies remain unfamiliar with it. In fact, how successfully a company
implements AWP can be significantly influenced by the AWP maturity level of the
engineering contractor. If the engineering contractor does not know about the benefits,
it may resist implementing AWP. If it does not understand AWP processes, it may make
errors in implementing them. From the outset, an engineering contractor should clearly
understand the benefits of implementing AWP.
To drive cultural change in a company, one must obtain senior management buy-in.
The most efficient way to convey the value of implementing AWP is to wholly grasp
and clearly present its benefits. To better understand AWP benefits, the prospective
engineering contractor’s employees should collect publications, read case studies,
and attend presentations. The first step in overcoming cultural resistance to change
is to convince the company that project performance is going to improve if AWP is
properly implemented.
Once a company has recognized the value of implementing AWP, it is essential

that its stakeholders understand AWP processes. When an engineering company does
not understand AWP processes, it may not experience all of the potential benefits
from implementing them. For engineers to see what AWP is and to grasp how its
processes should be executed, they must be educated and trained. A company can
develop AWP processes and procedures by drawing on AWP resources, such as the
foundational AWP publications by RT-272 and RT-319. A company can also familiarize
itself with AWP processes by attending AWP conferences and taking part in AWP-
related activities outside the company.
Engineering company misperceives that its processes are compliant

with AWP
When stakeholders are unfamiliar with AWP concepts and processes, they may
perceive, wrongly, that AWP is being implemented in a project. Implementing only a few
AWP aspects is no guarantee of a successful implementation; neither is it sufficient to
provide deliverables capable of supporting successful AWP implementation on upcoming
project phases. It is common for an engineering company to add a few AWP aspects
and components to an existing process and judge itself to have properly implemented
AWP. When that happens, implementation issues or constraints are likely to arise later.
It is critical that an engineering company understand AWP processes. The most

reasonable starting point for familiarizing oneself with AWP processes is to consult
the foundational AWP resources. The engineering contractor should then review the
16
4. Enhancing Integration between Engineering and AWP
existing process to assess which aspects fail to support AWP implementation. After
successfully identifying potential improvement areas, the company can modify its
existing processes and incorporate new ones to align itself with AWP best practices.
To avoid a situation where the engineering company fails to meet the expected
AWP requirements, the owner company should conduct a contractor prequalification
assessment. The main objective here is to verify that the engineering contractor is
capable of meeting the expected AWP requirements. This assessment is performed by
reviewing and analyzing the engineering company’s processes and making sure they
properly includes AWP aspects. The contracting strategy can be used to certify that the
engineering contractor is responsible for implementing AWP accordingly. Regardless of
the contract type, the owner should clearly state the AWP requirements and expectations
in the contract, so the engineering company is aware of its responsibilities.
Impact of contract type on AWP implementation

In the engineering process of a project, the owner’s influence is affected by the
contract type. Usually, the owner has more engagement opportunities in reimbursement
contracts than in lump-sum contracts. In contrast to the situation with a lump-sum
contract, in a reimbursable contract the owner is directly involved in the engineering
process, making it easier to drive proper AWP implementation. In lump-sum
contracts, the owner should ensure that the AWP contract language, expectations,
and requirements are clear and have been understood by the engineering contractor.
The owner should consider establishing a reimbursable contract with a contractor that
possesses a lower AWP maturity level. This way, the owner will be able to proactively
contribute to implementation.
Perceived change in engineering work sequence

When implementing AWP, engineers should support the construction phase with
properly sequenced engineering deliverables. They will thus perceive changes to
their work sequence. If engineers are designing the piping system, for example, then
traditionally they are going to design the bore pipes first and then design all the screw
pipe, with no consideration of the pipes’ location. Or engineers typically deliver all of
the steel design and then the piping design. However, because these approaches do
not align the deliverables schedule with the construction sequence, they fail to fit the
needs of AWP. The right sequence for carrying out the engineering is not designing
by system, but by project area. This becomes an issue when engineers resist change
to their traditional processes or feel ill-equipped to adapt to the new work sequence.
One way to overcome this issue would be to educate everybody concerned on

AWP’s basic knowledge areas. Engineers should be familiar with AWP fundamentals,
AWP best practices, required AWP resources, metrics, and benchmarking. In addition
17
to educating engineers about AWP, the company should also train them. A company
can overcome resistance to changing the work sequence by making engineers familiar
with AWP processes and the benefits that ensue.
To efficiently execute the new work sequence, engineers must help develop an AWP
implementation plan. In that way, engineers can fully comprehend the constructability
plan and develop an engineering schedule that supports the construction sequence.
Developing a transparent process jointly with a robust change management process
ensures that engineering deliverables follow the construction path. Engineering can
only implement AWP effectively if the company’s technology system supports AWP.
Thus, it is essential to have software that properly endorses AWP implementation.
Such software should, for example, enable linking the engineering schedule with the
construction sequence.
Construction expertise input to develop the path of construction

Engineering and construction often have different engagement timeframes. The
contract generally dictates when each stakeholder should participate in the project.
Hence, the contracting strategy and the contract terms influence the alignment between
engineering and construction. One of the main processes that enable a successful
AWP implementation is defining the path of construction. Such definition enables the
engineering schedule to support the construction sequence. Occasionally, though,
engineering is engaged earlier than construction in a project. In such cases, engineering
cannot obtain input from construction to develop the path of construction.
A variety of scenarios depend upon the contracting strategy. This issue has a greater
impact on projects that have one contractor for engineering and procurement and a
different contractor performing construction (EP and C). Less affected are projects
where one contractor is responsible for engineering, procurement, and construction
(EPC). In an EPC project, information collaboration is more efficient, making it easier
to obtain construction input and develop a path of construction. In EP and C projects,
the company sometimes awards the project to an EP contractor before selecting the
construction contractor. When this happens, it can be a challenge getting the two
stakeholders aligned.
With EPC projects, communication can be done internally. After all, engineering,
procurement, and construction are being performed by the same company. Therefore,
construction should be engaged early to ensure proper development of the path
of construction. Defining the path of construction enables engineering to align its
deliverables and schedule with the construction sequence.
18
In an EP and C project, the owner should ensure that engineering has the support
to develop its schedule and deliverables based on the construction sequence. One
way the owner can make certain that engineering has the information to properly
implement AWP is to conduct a practice instruction and constructability workshop with
different construction contractors. This activity has the objective of understanding how
each contractor structures its constructability plan and which key elements support
the engineering phase. Thus, the owner can provide clear guidance and expectations
on how to develop the path of construction. To develop the path of construction, the
EP contractor can rely on internal or external construction expertise to provide the
needed input. Relying on internal expertise is an option when the company has a
construction department; when it does not, the EP contractor should rely on external
construction expertise.
Aligning engineering deliverables with construction sequencing

One of the key factors for a successful implementation is to align the engineering
deliverables with construction sequencing. Achieving proper alignment is a multi-step
process. The first step is to make sure that the path of construction is clearly defined
and understood by the engineering contractor. Therefore, engineering and construction
should have a similar work breakdown structure (WBS), and the deliverables should
be planned according to the WBS and the path of construction.
An example of how to quickly introduce a graphical representation of the path of

construction is to take a plot plan, delineate construction work areas (CWAs) on that
plot plan, break the CWAs down into construction work packages (CWPs), and use a
graphical tool to present the construction sequence to the stakeholders jointly with a
traditional schedule.
This enables engineering to develop its schedule based on the construction sequence.
The schedule should tie engineering deliverables to AWP deliverables, which means
that the deliverables should be progressed by engineering work packages (EWPs).
To ensure that engineering deliverables align with the construction sequence through
the whole project lifecycle, it is key that a company measure engineering deliverables
based on how complete EWPs are in percentage terms.
Developing engineering schedule based on AWP deliverables

After the path of construction has been clarified, engineering is capable of developing
the schedule. In this phase, one obstacle is the lack of guidance on how to properly
develop the schedule in a way that supports AWP implementation. One of the general
requirements when developing an engineering schedule is to define how to link
engineering deliverables with AWP deliverables (i.e., CWAs, CWPs, EWPs, and IWPs).
19
To develop a schedule effectively, adopt tools that support integrating the AWP
process into the schedule. The most common formal definition of a schedule is a sequence
of construction activities, though a traditional tool cannot include some AWP supporting
information. For example, it would be impossible to provide a graphical demonstration
of the construction sequence that pointed out the CWAs and CWPs, which would help
engineering understand the path of construction. It would also be impossible to show
the link between engineering and the path of construction. Therefore, the tool should
be able to handle the proper linking between the engineering deliverables and the
construction sequence.
Tracking the progress of engineering deliverables based on AWP

deliverables
To ensure that engineering is aligned with the AWP implementation plan, it is vital
to track engineering deliverables according to AWP deliverables. An engineering
contractor has its own internal progressing system for engineering deliverables, and this
should be aligned with the EWP framework. The engineering contractor usually uses
the date and a master drawing registry to list engineering drawings. It also uses this
system to track each drawing’s progress in terms of percentage complete. To support
AWP processes, it is key to map each deliverable to one or many EWPs.
Once this mapping has been done, progress can be measured by how complete
EWPs are in percentage terms. At the same time, the discipline leads should provide a
complete estimate for each EWP. Tracking engineering deliverables by EWP completion
enables the prioritization of critical work. Such tracking enables an assessment of which
deliverables are supposed to be complete soon and links engineering deliverables with
the expected construction date. Other important information that can be extracted by
tracking progress on the deliverables by completion percentage of EWPs includes
data on how engineering is affecting the construction sequence.
The engineering contractor should also have a well-structured process for measuring
EWP readiness. To properly measure EWP readiness, it is important to consider the
construction sequence and not only the quantity of work completed. CII and COAA
have created templates that should be adjusted and implemented by the company to
better fit its processes.
Lack of tools and data standardization

Alignment between stakeholders is facilitated by having standards in place.
Furthermore, having standards established improves the information system and eases
the project’s data flow. One example of data standardization is the numbering system
for EWPs. Suppose that an engineering contractor has a system that automates the
20
numbering of EWPs, but that the owner and the contractor have different systems
with different numbering standards. In that situation, the data flow is constrained by
inefficient information exchange. Occasionally, an owner defines a standard numbering
system that is not consistent with the engineering company’s automated system. From
the engineering perspective, that makes the numbering process less efficient, since
the automated system is incompatible and will not be used for its intended purpose.
Throughout the project, stakeholders review and consult about a great deal of
information, such as vendor data and EWP completion percentages. Managing large
quantities of data from different project stakeholders is a challenge when there is no
standard on the planning process program. Not having the tools to support and apply
the standards can also affect a company’s productivity. Therefore, it is important to
define data standards, but it is helpful to adopt technology systems that are aligned
with the standards defined for the project.
Lack of attributes in the design model

A construction-friendly 3D model can be a valuable tool to support efficient AWP
implementation. However, the 3D model is not always perceived as a key engineering
deliverable, and when engineering contractors develop the 3D model, they sometimes
leave out AWP attributes. For engineers, it is a challenge to define the right model
attributes, because traditional engineering models do not include the attributes that
support AWP implementation. Attributes that are helpful to the field planner include
spool numbers, skilled piece marks, pipe supports, and CWPs. Prior to including the
attributes in the model, the engineering company must ensure that the key attributes
have been specified and that the company has a technology that supports the inclusion
of these attributes.
The integrity of the data is also essential. To ensure efficient data collaboration, the
3D model should follow the standards defined for the project. During the construction
phase, field planners can utilize the 3D model for several purposes. For example, they
can select which material will be installed in one to two weeks of work on the installation
work package (IWP) and make it constraint-free.
It is crucial to define the model attributes to make the engineering model construction-
friendly and to support the field planner. The 3D engineering model, containing all
attributes, should be recognized as a deliverable to support construction.
21
Chapter 5
Identifying Potential Solutions
to Overcome AWP Implementation Barriers
By combining the findings from its analysis of expert interviews with its analysis
of AWP-relevant resources, RT-365 identified potential solutions to overcome AWP
implementation barriers. This chapter presents the methods used and the findings that
emerged from that process.
RT-365 divided the task into four steps:
1. Identifying and classifying AWP-relevant resources

2. Mapping implementation barriers to these resources
3. Identifying potential solutions to overcome AWP implementation barriers
4. Categorizing potential solutions by topic
The team also used these four steps to develop a table that sorted solutions by topic.
The large number of documents requiring analysis necessitated the use of software
that could manage and code the relevant resources. After the team had identified
potential solutions to overcome each AWP implementation barrier, it integrated the
findings into the AWP Concierge.
Identifying and Classifying AWP-relevant Resources

For this first step, the researchers analyzed primary AWP resources: CII and
COAA publications, and presentations from AWP conferences organized by Group
ASI. This process gathered 68 resources relevant to this research topic. Cataloging
the documents in an organized way enabled an efficient qualitative analysis. RT-365
divided the relevant resources into two categories:
1. CII References: CII publications related to AWP

2. External References: Publications, reports, presentations, and case
studies related to AWP that originated from any source besides CII. These
documents are available online and no license or membership is needed to
access them.
23
Mapping Implementation Barriers to AWP-relevant Resources

For the second step, RT-365 mapped barriers to accessing AWP resources and
implementing AWP. It adopted a standard nomenclature to support this process:
• Publications: “Author. Year. Publication Title. Publisher. Location.”
• Conference presentations: “Author. Publication Title. Year.”
Since the External References encompassed a large number of resources, the team
broke that section into subcategories according to source and publication year.
CII References
• CII/COAA (Construction Owners Association of Alberta) (2013). Advanced Work
Packaging: Design through Workface Execution, Volume III: Implementation Case Format: Author (Year),
Studies and Expert Interviews. Implementation Resource 272-2. Austin, TX: Publication Title, Reference
Construction Industry Institute. ID, Location, Publisher
External References (ER.)

1. AWP Conference 2019
Publication a. Group ASI. Achieving 21st-Century Project Outcomes Using AWP. 2019.
Format: Author, Publication Title, Year
Source and b. An AWP Primer: The Principles of Advanced Work Packaging. 2019.
Year
2. AWP Conference 2018
a. Rankin, Lloyd, et al. COAA AWP Scalability Project. 2018.
Figure 2. Reference List Structure
To map relevant resources to each barrier entailed mapping each block of information
from a resource to a barrier, where a block of information was a delimited section of a
resource (e.g., a chapter from a publication). Different types of resources are structured
in different ways: reports and publications are made up of chapters and subchapters,
for example, while presentations are made up of sections and slides. Therefore, blocks
of information from a publication could be defined at several different levels that ranged
from a chapter to even a specific sentence. The level at which an information block is
defined depends upon the objectives of the QA. For the RT-365 research, the basic
block of information for publications and reports was the subchapter level, while the
basic block of information for presentations was a slide.
The cataloging process was based on the general QA process:

• Step 1. Selecting the Resource – Select the AWP-relevant resource that is to
be mapped to an implementation barrier.
• Step 2. Analyzing the Resource – Fully grasp the content of the document and
its information blocks, and then extract its information blocks.
• Step 3. Coding the Data – Create codes relevant to the data.
• Step 4. Mapping Codes to the Barrier – Link these codes to the barriers
identified by RT-DCC-04, presented in Table 5 (CII 2020).
• Step 5. Validation – Validate the QA process.
24
5. Identifying Potential Solutions to Overcome AWP Implementation Barriers
Team members checked the codes and linked barriers to ensure that findings were
reliable and consistent. The codes aimed to communicate two types of information: the
location of each information block, and the topic each block addressed. The coding
system worked differently for CII and External References. Figure 3 presents the code-
naming standards for the relevant resources.
Example of a CII Reference Example of an External Reference

Location within Reference Section of External Reference
CS: Case Study
Location within Reference
EI: Expert Interview
Resource Title [IR319-2.CS6] Resource Title [ER . 1 . q . slide47]
Reference ID Specific Reference within Section

IR: Implementation Resource
RS: Research Summary ER: External Reference
RR: Research Report
SP: Special Publication
FR: Final Report
Figure 3. Code-naming Standards for CII and External References
Table 5 illustrates the mapping of a relevant resource to a barrier.
Table 5. Example of a Qualitative Analysis: Relevant Resource

Resource Construction Industry Institute and Construction
Owners Association of Alberta (2013). Advanced
Work Packaging: Design through Workface
Execution, Volume II: Implementation Guidance.
Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1. Austin,
TX: Construction Industry Institute
Step 2. Analyzing the Example Information Block:

Resource Chapter 2. Contractual Guidance and Strategies
Step 3. Coding the Data Code from Step 2 Information Block:

Alignment between contracting strategy and AWP
implementation strategy is crucial.
Step 4. Mapping Codes Code in Step 3 Is Relevant to the Barrier:

to the Barrier Lack of alignment of AWP implementation strategy
with contracting strategy

The barriers and codes have been checked by a
member of RT-365 and are correct and consistent.
25
Identifying Potential Solutions to Overcome AWP Implementation Barriers

The process for identifying potential solutions was similar to how the team mapped
implementation barriers to AWP-relevant resources. The researchers extracted excerpts
from resources that mentioned what could be done to overcome these barriers:
• Step 1. Selecting the Resource – Select a resource that has potential solutions.
• Step 2. Analyzing the Resource – Analyze the document and extract any part
that provides steps or methods to overcome AWP implementation barriers.
• Step 3. Coding the Data – Define codes for the information presented in the
publication. These codes are potential solutions to overcoming barriers to AWP
implementation.
• Step 4. Mapping Codes to the Barrier – Map the codes to the predefined
themes. In this case, the themes were the barriers identified by RT-DCC-04.
• Step 5. Validation – Validate findings to ensure they are reliable and consistent.
RT-365 members performed the validation process, then documented their validated
findings. Table 6 shows how QA was conducted on AWP-relevant resources.
Table 6. Example of a Qualitative Analysis: AWP-relevant Resource

Resource CII (2019). Bridging the Gap between Design
and Construction Models to Improve Advanced
Work Packaging. Final Report TC-01. Austin, TX:
Step 2. Analyzing the Example Excerpt Identified in Resource Selected in

Resource Step 1:
“A set of AWP Piping Model Best Practices could
pinpoint how to minimize these gaps, to ensure that
workface planners would seldom need to reconfigure
or rekey a 3D model.”
Step 3. Coding the Data Potential Solution Code from Step 2 Excerpt:
Develop a set of AWP piping model best practices
Step 4. Mapping Codes Potential Solution in Step 3 Is Relevant to the Barrier:

to the Barrier Lack of attributes in the design model

The barriers and codes have been checked by a
member of RT-365 and are correct and consistent.
26
The following section presents potential solutions to overcome each AWP

implementation barrier identified by RT-DCC-04. This set of potential solutions is the
result of the QA process described in this chapter.
Awaiting more industry AWP project results before implementing

• Review recent case studies where AWP was successfully implemented to obtain
information on AWP efforts and benefits.
• Review case studies that represent projects similar to the ones executed by the
company.
• Obtain current AWP information through participation in AWP industry events
(e.g., CII AWP CBA meetings, conferences, and forums).
• Implement AWP on pilot projects initially to experience the effort and benefits
prior to a broader application across company projects.
• Identify opportunities to implement AWP in a fit-for-purpose, scalable fashion for
various sizes and types of projects.
• Deploy AWP in phases, such as selecting small projects to begin the AWP journey
and then scaling up slowly.
AWP program is not owner-driven

• Demonstrate the potential benefits of AWP to owners.
• Identify resources on how previous owners have successfully encouraged the
use of AWP.
• Propose financial incentives and owner benefits of implementing AWP.
• Develop a RACI chart to have clear accountability within the owner’s team.
Belief that experienced field leadership and crews can construct without
IWPs
Company is not currently implementing AWP

• Review specific case studies or expert interviews of similar companies and similar
project scopes.
• Understand AWP benefits according to company maturity level and recognize
that benefits will improve with practice or maturity growth.
• Include IWP requirements in contract.
• Share CII and industry data that show performance improvement from using
AWP, including better workface planning.
27
Company is currently implementing AWP

• Define clear guidelines about which meaningful metrics to use, including input
from field leadership (as appropriate).
• Conduct workshop to present AWP benefits.
• Meet to regularly assess the AWP program performance (e.g., to analyze AWP’s
impact on project safety, cost, schedule, quality, and operability).
• Demonstrate the workface planning improvements that AWP is bringing to the
project’s field leadership and crews. Examples of areas that may be positively
affected include:
– Project organization
– Definition of roles and responsibilities
– Constraint management
– Engineering drawings release
– Procurement
– Materials management
– IWP development (e.g., schedule, release plan, contents, tracking, reporting,
closure, feedback loop, and continuous improvement)
Cannot find the right technology solution

• Define the requirements that the software needs to fulfill.
• Meet with technology companies to have them demonstrate capabilities.
• Participate in AWP events to get acquainted with available technologies.
Changes to roles of individuals when implementing AWP

• Create a top-down alignment – have “leadership drive” rather than “management
endorsed.”
• Increase education and understanding on procedures and benefits to obtain
staff commitment.
• Provide additional training according to each role as needed, and ensure each
team member fully understands his or her role relative to AWP methods.
• Develop an organizational chart that supports AWP implementation.
• Invest in new resources if needed (e.g., AWP champions, workface planners,
others experienced with AWP or workface planning).
• Prepare each team member to be engaged in the enhanced communication and
collaboration that should occur when implementing AWP.
28
Company not interested in implementing AWP

• Understand why the company is not interested in AWP implementation.
• Review and present case studies that show that similar companies are obtaining
benefits from AWP implementation.
• Understand AWP benefits.
• Estimate payback potential of applying AWP.
• Increase understanding of AWP fundamentals.
• Understand potential for owner mandate for AWP implementation on a project.
• Define and apply performance-based incentives for AWP on a project.
• Adopt AWP assessment of owners/contractors/subcontractors.
• Consider developing an AWP assessment scorecard.
• Define metrics and KPIs to be used for tracking and demonstrating AWP value.
Construction company not available to provide timely input to the path of

construction
• Assign a construction champion to participate in the development of the path of
construction (PoC) .
• Include requirements for appropriate contractor engagement in the contract.
• Bring construction planning into the early phases of project front end planning.
• Create an intuitive and graphical PoC development plan to align parties on PoC
definition.
• Hire construction consultants to provide PoC input when expertise is not available
in house.
Contract size does not support AWP implementation

• Define which aspects of AWP could improve project performance considering
the contract size.
• Identify AWP’s scalability potential.
• Implement scalable AWP to fit contact size.
• Review cases studies of projects with similar size.
• Deploy AWP in phases throughout the company, such as selecting small projects
to begin the AWP journey and then scaling up slowly.
29
Contractor not engaged early enough

• Ensure project organization chart supports AWP implementation.
• Ensure the AWP champion’s participation in a project’s front end planning.
• Include the contractor’s engagement timing on the AWP playbook and contract.
• Budget for contractor expertise.
• Organize regular meetings between owner and contractor representatives to
discuss progress and solutions.
• Use construction consultants to get construction input in the early phases, when
the contractor has not yet been selected (if company does not have a construction
department).
• Define initial path of construction (PoC) in the second phase of front end planning
with contractor input.
• Specify organizational chart requirements in contract.
Cost to implement
• Review case studies that include implementation costs and monetize AWP
benefits.
• Identify specific components of AWP-related cost for the project scope.
• Estimate payback potential relative to the estimated cost.
• Identify where the company lies on the AWP maturity model and estimate the
expected benefits relative to the project scope.
• Understand AWP scalability potential.
• Identify project position responsibilities that can potentially be upgraded for
performance of AWP versus needing to add certain new positions to the team.
• Start by implementing on pilot projects to demonstrate actual cost along with
benefits.
• Determine fit-for-purpose AWP application for a project scope and provide training
on cost-effective implementation.
• Carefully evaluate the possibility of using fit-for-purpose software/automation
tools to improve data management efficiency for a project.
• Deploy AWP in phases throughout the company, such as selecting smaller
projects to begin the AWP journey and then scaling up slowly.
30
Current company culture does not fully support AWP

• Provide education on AWP fundamentals, methods, and benefits; benefits have
been demonstrated by industry across multiple performance dimensions.
• Use CII and industry AWP resources and experience, including AWP return-on-
investment information, to obtain senior management commitment to increasing
the use of AWP.
• Identify cultural elements that do not fully support an AWP approach, and adjust
as needed.
• Address organizational adjustments that may have to be made to align with
culture change needs.
endorsed.”
• Look for case studies on how to change company culture to fit AWP, and interact
as appropriate with other companies to learn from their related experiences.
• Understand AWP benefits relative to company maturity level to develop and
communicate reasonable expectations for AWP journey.
• Implement AWP fundamentals on select project scopes to first demonstrate the
benefits, then use this AWP experience to support adjustments to culture.
• Ensure commercial strategies and contract models support AWP.
• Develop AWP champions and have them support as well as drive appropriate
culture changes.
• Revise company systems and procedures to include AWP.
• Incentivize the use of AWP.
Current company processes would have to be revised to include AWP

• Identify and promote AWP benefits within company, emphasizing that the
revisions will be valuable.
• Review which processes will need to be changed and how, by performing a gap
assessment of existing company processes and procedures relative to AWP
fundamentals.
• Obtain appropriate input and learnings to consider from other companies.
• Obtain senior management support for the revisions needed.
• Develop an implementation plan for the revisions, including schedule, resources,
and staffing needed.
• Include AWP implementation in project contracts.
• Develop a list of functional roles and job descriptions related to AWP procedures.
• Provide AWP training to staff to increase overall AWP knowledge.
• Plan to make continuous improvements to related company procedures.
31
Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP

• Develop and train an AWP champion within the design engineering organization
to drive AWP on projects.
• Train the engineering organization staff on AWP, its benefits to a project, and its
application in engineering design (e.g., EWPs, EWP release plan, and how to
organize work sequencing by AWP deliverables).
• Reflect on issues and challenges in design engineering on past projects and how
AWP can bring worthwhile improvement.
• Ensure that the AWP champion on a project is positioned at a level to influence
the project’s engineering managers.
endorsed.”
• Include contractual language requiring application of AWP in engineering design
and with rules of credit linked to AWP deliverables such as progress and on-
schedule completion of EWPs.
• Engage engineering during the second phase of front end planning (concept
phase).
• Ensure engineering participation in early AWP strategy development and related
decision-making to establish alignment on the AWP application for the project.
• Ensure engineering participation in AWP implementation plan development.
Difficulty in making AWP fit-for-purpose on various sizes of projects

• Learn the fundamentals of AWP, in addition to the detailed methods; ensure the
fundamentals are implemented regardless of project size.
• In selecting staffing for a project, consider abilities of individuals to provide input
and leadership for multiple disciplines on the project regarding the AWP program.
• Understand project size and AWP requirements; consider use of only appropriate
AWP-related software tools for the particular project scope.
• Interact with other companies or projects to learn from their experiences with
AWP scalability and fit-for-purpose applications.
• Ensure project team has appropriate level of AWP maturity to develop and apply
a fit-for-purpose AWP program on the project.
• Define project principles in each project phase to determine AWP scalability.
32
Difficulty in scoping and sizing IWPs

• Review company’s IWP development procedures.
• Adopt best practices while scoping and sizing IWPs.
• Define standards for IWP scoping and sizing.
• Discuss IWP development with the responsible safety, quality, superintendent,
and craft personnel in a preparatory meeting.
• Size IWP according to scope of work.
• Utilize proper technology solution to ensure efficient IWP creation.
• Perform a full constraint analysis on IWPs prior to IWP release.
• Create an IWP template for each IWP type.
• Sign each IWP before the beginning of field activities to increase accountability.
• Conduct an IWP quality check.
• Assign dedicated and experienced AWP planners to develop IWPs.
• Train the AWP team on how to scope and size IWPs.
• Structure IWPs by discipline to identify clear interdependencies and to improve
sequencing between the different crews.
• Make sure that the IWPs include only relevant information when turned in to field
personnel. Do not overload the IWP with irrelevant information.
Difficulty with ongoing tracking and closing of IWPs

• Train field leadership and crew members on the process and the critical need
for close tracking and reporting of IWP field construction progress all the way
through full closure of the IWP scope.
• Ensure the project team is staffed with the appropriate number of individuals with
specific responsibility for tracking and reporting IWP closure.
• Assess the IWP tracking and closure process and quickly make any needed
improvements to avoid growing suboptimal performance early in field use of IWPs.
• Ensure enough construction site quality inspectors are assigned to keep up with
the workload of performing timely inspection of field work to close each IWP on
schedule and in sequence.
• Assign the responsibility to track and close IWPs to a specific staff.
• Conduct constraint analysis to ensure there is not an overload of open IWPs.
• Track non-compliance in IWPs.
• Manage IWP in conjunction with field supervisors.
• Develop and implement an intelligent IWP numbering system.
• Create an IWP template for each IWP type
33
• Include 3D screen shots in the IWPs, since these depictions are beneficial to
field crew in orienting the work and in better visualizing the full work scope of
the IWP to be completed.
• Put in place a feedback loop between the field leadership and the workface
planners to identify any barriers that are hampering effective closure of IWPs.
• Have an effective process for dealing with any punch items that need to remain
open when considering closing an IWP, such as the following:
– Transfer the open items into the scope of an upcoming IWP.
– Transfer the open items onto a well-managed punch list that is being actively
and regularly cleared.
– Make a well-informed decision to let the original IWP remain open for a short
time until fully completing the remaining items.
Do not need AWP because current project performance or results are

good enough
• Assess areas for improvement in project performance.
• Review case studies and expert interviews from similar companies.
• Understand AWP benefits according to the company’s AWP implementation
maturity level.
• Obtain senior management buy-in.
• Understand the value drivers to implement AWP.
• Educate stakeholders on AWP.
• Analyze AWP’s impact on project performance: safety, cost, schedule, quality,
and operability.
• Understand the potential return on investment of AWP implementation.
Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence

• Engage engineers in the development or review of AWP implementation plan.
• Establish the sequence of construction activities early in the front end planning
stage.
• Obtain input from construction to align construction sequence and engineering
deliverables.
• Ensure engineering is engaged with the path of construction (PoC), which should
be validated iteratively.
• Manage CWP handoff from engineering to construction.
• Determine whether CWPs can be sized into smaller packages with corresponding
EWPs that will support the construction schedule
• Provide training to engineering
34
Expectation of limited (or no) benefits to company from AWP
Company is not currently implementing AWP

• Review case studies and expert interviews from various and similar companies.
• Demonstrate AWP benefits according to the company’s AWP implementation
maturity level per CII publications.
Company is currently implementing AWP

• Define proper metrics to measure AWP performance and benefits.
• Conduct workshop to present overall AWP benefits.
• Meet regularly to assess the program performance and ensure that goals are
continually met.
• Identify and document actual AWP benefits being realized, including the following
“soft benefits”:
– Improved collaboration
– Improved communication
– Greater transparency
– Better alignment
– Issues identification
– Teamwork
• Discuss AWP’s impact on actual projects’ performance: safety, cost, schedule,
quality, and operability.
• Measure AWP status and progress at the project level.
External push-back (general)

• Present AWP’s return on investment.
• Engage stakeholders early in the front end planning phases of the project.
• Develop an efficient communication channels system.
• Develop an efficient information management system.
• Listen to concerns and questions related to AWP implementation.
• Define AWP expectations in contract language.
• Define the expected benefits from AWP implementation.
• Discuss the AWP implementation plan during pre-bid.
• Provide guidance on the AWP implementation plan and how to align company
processes with AWP processes in the playbook.
• Provide role-based training and workshops according to role in project.
• Define proper KPIs and metrics to measure AWP impact on project.
35
External push-back from E contractor/EP contractor/EPC contractor

• Define transparency of needs (in reimbursable contracts).
• Define clear specification when entering arrangement (in lump-sum contracts).
• Identify and discuss changes from previous projects or contracts.
• Create top-down incentives.
• Align existing processes with AWP process.
External push-back from CM contractor/C contractor

• Assign resources that can provide construction input in the early stages.
• Define transparency of needs (in reimbursable contracts).
• Define clear specification when entering arrangement (in lump-sum contracts).
External push-back from JV/consortium partners

• Demonstrate that industry and competitors are moving in this direction.
• Define how information management will be aligned between partners.
• Ensure that all partners agree on the WBS.
External push-back from owner

• Define the owner’s role throughout the project life cycle.
External push-back from subcontractor

• Develop a fit-for-purpose program for subcontractors.
• Establish timeframe for subcontractor to provide required information.
External push-back from suppliers

• Define how suppliers want to handle sub-suppliers.
• Integrate supplier attributes with AWP deliverables.
• Develop a fit-for-purpose program for suppliers.
36
Inconsistency in AWP implementation due to lack of structured process

• Assess the company’s AWP maturity level.
• Codify the company’s AWP implementation plan.
• Increase awareness about AWP processes.
• Review the company’s existing AWP processes and procedures.
• Learn organizational design from similar companies.
• Analyze lessons learned from previous projects and identify areas that require
improvement.
• Define work packaging sizing and definition strategy.
• Leverage project controls organization to help bring structure and consistency.
• Standardize scheduling techniques and project controls metrics.
• Implement standard data requirements in contract and playbook.
• Develop role-based procedures for each participant who supports AWP.
• Produce project integration flowcharts.
• Budget for contractor expertise.
• Define owner and EPC exchange of information and practices to support each
other during AWP implementation.
• Provide functional training.
Internal push-back (general)

• Engage early to participate in the development of the AWP implementation plan.
• Develop an efficient communication channels system.
• Develop an efficient information management system.
• Listen to concerns and questions related to AWP implementation.
• Connect with others who have experience with AWP to exchange and share
lessons learned.
• Define the expected benefits from AWP implementation.
• Provide guidance on the AWP implementation plan and how to align company
processes with AWP processes in the playbook.
• Provide role-based training and workshop according to role in the project.
• Define proper KPIs and metrics to measure AWP’s impact on the project.
37
Internal push-back from Management

• Present successful projects.
Internal push-back from Information Management/Technology

• Recognize that technical challenges are always a part of new technology.
• Adopt staged approach to rolling out new technology.
Internal push-back from Engineering

• Listen to engineering team’s concerns regarding AWP implementation.
• Provide training to ease transition to new tools and reduce growing pains for
producing deliverables.
Internal push-back from Field Supervision

• Engage field supervision early to understand the AWP implementation plan.
• Present AWP’s positive impact on field supervision work.
• Listen to field supervision’s concerns regarding AWP implementation.
• Emphasize AWP benefits related to safety, activity predictability, supervisor’s
flexibility, and cross-discipline coordination.
• Provide training specifically to superintendent level and similar roles.
Internal push-back from Field Crews

• Present enhancement on safety performance due to AWP implementation.
• Demonstrate improvements in organization and processes.
Internal push-back from Project Managers

• Provide a clear explanation of how AWP affects job responsibilities.
• Present a successful project that implemented AWP.
Internal push-back from Procurement

• Demonstrate AWP’s benefits related to supply chain visibility.
• Provide training on how AWP affects materials management.
38
Internal push-back from Project Controls

• Include project controls in package numbering scheme and schedule integration.
• Include project controls deliverables as integral to path of construction.
• Support WBS development considering AWP processes and deliverables.
• Provide guidance on reporting requirements with AWP.
Internal push-back from Construction Managers

• Provide examples of how AWP still gives flexibility to control work.
• Get construction managers involved earlier in the process; construction-driven
engineering, a lot more input early on.
• Redefine construction manager role for ownership of driving construction; need
this person to be a cheerleader.
• Listen to concerns.
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and contract

type
• Develop a detailed set of implementation strategies for different contract types.
• Determine the project contract strategy early in front end planning:
– Who will design, procure, engineer, and construct the project?
– What contract strategy will be used?
• Consider a reimbursable cost compensation structure when using contractors
new to or unfamiliar with AWP.
• Understand the impacts of contract type (pros and cons) when using an AWP
implementation strategy.
• Ensure that the commercial strategies contract model supports AWP.
• Establish role-specific accountability methods.
• Conduct contractor prequalification assessment to ensure companies’ AWP
capabilities.
• Define AWP scalability.
39
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and project

phases
• Develop a process to stay ahead of field construction.
• Consider effective AWP staff and champions to help transition from design to field
execution; look at contract basis to ensure continuity from the office to the field.
• Establish project work breakdown structure (WBS) so that progress through
preliminary planning and design and the detailed design phases can be
adequately monitored.
• Ensure that field strategy is based on AWP elements (i.e., CWAs, CWPs, IWPs).
• Obtain buy-in from top management all the way to field crews (i.e., superintendent,
general foreman, foreman, field crew).
• Ensure AWP training is reaching field supervision and crews to the proper extent
and at a proper time.
• Adjust project controls systems to match AWP.
• Ensure project meetings focus on driving AWP deliverables (e.g., PoC, CWP,
EWP, IWP) according to the plan.
• Continue to identify and address project-specific risks to successful AWP
implementation.
• Include timing and size of IWPs in playbook.
• Engage construction, engineering, procurement, and commissioning and startup
early in the project.
• Ensure applicable IT tools will be in place and integrated early in the project.
• Ensure key stakeholders are involved in IWP release and approval plan.
• Remember that project controls is not only about IWPs.
• Make project controls part of overall alignment.
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and project

scope
• Obtain input from engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning
and startup teams on integrating AWP strategy in project scope.
• Establish a project work breakdown structure considering AWP elements (i.e.,
CWAs, CWPs, EWPs, PWPs, IWPs) so that progress through preliminary planning
and design and the detailed design phases can be adequately monitored.
• Ensure key stakeholders are involved in IWP release and approval plan.
• Develop ad hoc procedures to each participant to support AWP.
• Ensure that field strategy is based on AWP elements (i.e., CWAs, CWPs, EWPs,
PWPs, IWPs)
• Develop an effective change management program.
40

• Identify AWP requirements during front end planning to ensure engineering
understands expectations.
• Develop an AWP model attribute best practice.
• Define CWA, EWP, and CWP attributes that should be included in the model.
• Include AWP-related model attribute requirements in the contract.
• Define standards in the 3D model development.
• Include 3D model as an engineering contractual deliverable.
• Determine organizational attributes during early stage of the AWP process.
• Conduct training through the technology provider.
• Measure progress in the field and then update the model with construction
progress based on AWP deliverables.
Lack of AWP champion or leadership

• Engage AWP personnel and key managers in a timely manner.
• Create an organizational structure that supports AWP.
• Identify personnel to develop into AWP champions and provide thorough AWP
training to these individuals.
• Ensure AWP champions have authority to detail and enforce AWP compliance
across multiple disciplines, as appropriate.
• Develop a list of functional role and job descriptions related to AWP procedures.
• Ensure individuals to be serving as AWP champions and leaders fully understand
the benefits of AWP.
• Create a network of AWP champions and leaders within the company
• Staff each project with a champion or sponsor with specific AWP responsibilities
and accountability clearly in place.
• Hold staff accountable for AWP processes.
• Provide opportunities for the champion to participate in groups and activities
related to AWP outside the company (e.g., CII AWP CBA, CII research teams,
conferences, forums).
Lack of buy-in
• Demonstrate the potential benefits of AWP and the return on investment that have
been demonstrated to align well with expected results based upon CII research.
• Identify and review case studies similar to the company’s projects.
41
• Ensure broad understanding across the company that implementing AWP well
can improve numerous project performance dimensions, including:
– Safety – Quality – Operability – Issues resolution
– Cost – Predictability – Communication – Among others
– Schedule – Productivity – Collaboration
• Educate stakeholders on AWP to ensure buy-in at all levels.

• Consider and promote how AWP can help achieve project goals.
• Reward early AWP adopters within the company.
• Ensure buy-in is obtained at all levels so that teams are aligned fully.
• Network further with other companies regarding actual AWP implementation
experience.
Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes

• Study the foundational CII AWP publications and resources
• Understand the basic AWP knowledge areas, including:
– AWP fundamentals
– Implementation benefits
– Alignment between AWP and contracting strategy
– Dedicated staff to AWP
– Work processes
– Benchmarking and metrics
– Among others
• Review other AWP materials available from AWP conferences, company
presentation, or other venues.
• Review case studies and expert interviews that provide an overview of how
companies implement AWP.
• Assess the company’s AWP maturity level and corresponding expected benefits
from AWP implementation.
• Create a role-based (e.g., owner, EPC, contractor) AWP playbook and use the
playbook for education and training.
• Maintain up-to-date AWP company best practices.
• Educate and train contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers via an AWP
playbook.
• Audit and assess against AWP playbook requirements and responsibilities.
42
Lack of efficient and on-time scaffolding management

• Align scaffolding management plan with the AWP implementation plan.
• Plan and include pre-installed scaffolding on facility components as appropriate
to avoid need for installing scaffolding later in the field.
• Recognize scaffolding management as a key constraint to be managed for
successful workface planning.
• Engage scaffolding management and soft crafts early in the project for input into
planning for execution efficiency.
• Implement fit-for-purpose technology and software that efficiently supports
integration between scaffolding management and soft crafts and AWP
implementation.
• Include scaffolding plans and requirements as a key component in IWPs.
Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency

• Analyze AWP’s impact to project performance in the areas of safety, cost,
schedule, quality, and operability.
• Assess the implementation level and financial benefits considering the company’s
AWP maturity level.
• Adopt incentives based on project performance.
• Define and align project KPIs and metrics with AWP process.
Lack of interorganizational coordination following a scope change

• Understand and educate the project team on how AWP can facilitate change
management, not only by supporting ongoing timely completion of project
deliverables, but also by providing for flexibilities such as resequencing certain
IWPs due to field interruptions.
• Realize that AWP does not lock the project into a sequence but provides data
that enable traceability and facilitate changes when needed.
• Learn how AWP enhances change order visibility by providing clarity on affected
work scopes as defined by work packages.
• Review and upgrade the company’s change management procedures.
• Incorporate change management into AWP procedures (and vice-versa).
• Incorporate AWP best practices into change management procedures.
• Provide change management training to company staff.
• Create and distribute efficient change management process flowcharts.
• Employ appropriate, fit-for-purpose technology solutions to project for efficiency
gains in managing changes.
43
Lack of ongoing alignment between owner, contractors, suppliers, and

others
• Ensure that every stakeholder has assigned a champion to be responsible for
efficient communication on the contract.
endorsed” led by champions within each organization.
• Create an overall AWP framework and plan for the project with input from all
organizations involved (basis for alignment).
• Develop fit-for-purpose procedures to ensure that each stakeholder supports
the AWP plan.
• Align on implementation strategy.
• Ensure that needed expertise and resources are available, even if contractors
and vendors have not been selected.
• Develop contracts that are clear about AWP expectations and requirements.
• Include AWP as a key criterion in selecting contractors.
• Ensure continued leadership and engagement throughout the project life cycle.
• Engage all parties in AWP as early as possible.
• Plan for appropriate engagement with suppliers to keep them aligned throughout
AWP implementation.
• Identify training needs across all stakeholders.
• Provide cross-functional training.
• Implement an AWP onboarding and training program for new staff and
subcontractors.
• Ensure transparency on the status of all AWP deliverables – share data with
other stakeholders in a timely manner.
• Define and establish AWP metrics.
• Audit against metrics and KPIs.
• Ensure early involvement and proactive engagement by operations for smooth
and efficient handover of the facility.
• Establish formal AWP readiness reviews.
• Conduct periodic assessments to confirm alignment.
• Ensure support and continuity of key AWP leadership positions in the team.
44
Lack of AWP training

• Understand the value of providing training and how it can improve AWP
implementation.
• Assess AWP training needs.
• Seek external help to start developing an AWP training program.
• Develop an AWP onboarding training program.
• Train staff to spread overall AWP benefits, basics concepts, and process overview
within the company.
• Provide an AWP training course administered through provider.
• Provide role-based training for all new staff members.
• Establish an education and training program on site.
• Develop formal guidelines on how to conduct training.
• Conduct cross-functional group workshops.
• Train engineering to design thinking on construction sequence.
• Provide training for engineers and superintendents prior to project implementation
to ensure a proper implementation timeline.
• Train subcontractors prior to bidding phase in order to be able to engage them
early in the project.
Late AWP implementation

• Establish the AWP procedure early in front end planning to enable strategic
planning to implement tools.
• Involve the owner throughout the project lifecycle.
• Commit to implementing AWP prior to conceptual engineering design.
• Structure the contract to require AWP methods and define expectations.
• Engage engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning and
startup early in the project to develop the path of construction and an effective
implementation plan.
• Define critical staffing requirements to fill AWP positions.
• Define data and information flowcharts.
• Apply a technology solution early to support AWP implementation throughout
the project lifecycle.
• Ensure early identification of the AWP team and process in the project.
• Consider a scalable AWP approach when starting late:
– Will workface planning only be feasible?
– Will a path of construction process be utilized?
– Which elements of technology are applicable due to the late start?
45
Late owner-furnished items/information

• Define the owner’s deliverables.
• Stipulate deadlines for the owner’s deliverables in the contract.
• Codify the communication expectations of the owner.
• Ensure transparency on engineering and procurement status; share data with
other stakeholders in a timely manner.
• Include deliverables information and deadlines on the AWP playbook.
Low level of AWP maturity among contractors

• Obtain senior management buy-in.
• Use the AWP maturity level to set project performance expectations; focus on
productivity, alignment, and efficiency – rather than just rates and price – when
selecting a contractor.
• Define incentives and rewards, performance-based AWP approaches.
• Support the contractor during AWP implementation; share AWP practices and
procedures, assign a champion to ensure AWP is being properly implemented.
• Identify and focus on key AWP fundamentals:
– Developing the path of construction
– An EWP program
– Constraint management
– Information management
• Leverage the company’s functional expertise.
• Use a phased-in approach with lower-maturity contractors.
• Consider scalable implementation.
• Provide training to the contractor.
• Conduct fit-to-purpose training (e.g., functional groups, integrated project team).
• Assign AWP champions to support the contractor’s implementation.
• Integrate the owner and contractor leadership team and align expectations early
in the project.
• Define clear expectations in the contract.
• Have ongoing interactions on AWP with the contractor community.
• Develop an AWP quick-start guide.
46
Maintaining a constraint-free backlog of IWPs throughout the project

• Provide enough planning time in the project schedule to build an adequate set
of construction-ready IWPs.
• Conduct constraint analysis to ensure that there is not an overload of open IWPs.
• Use a dynamic module (one that is automatically updated) to keep track of the
priority items to be cleared.
• Indicate the IWPs’ starting dates and the remaining days to clear each item.
• Improve IWP issuance and progressing practices.
Materials management and logistics issues (materials to the workface)

• Put in place a supply chain, materials management, and logistics plan that
incorporates AWP fundamentals and processes.
• Ensure the materials management and logistics team is appropriately staffed for
the project’s AWP application.
• Engage vendors, suppliers, and subcontractors early in their appropriate aspects
of the project’s AWP implementation.
• Ensure efficient information exchange among vendors, suppliers, contractor, and
subcontractors.
• Set up an inventory backlog plan in advance.
• Develop a detailed bill of materials tied to AWP work packages (e.g., EWPs,
CWPs, IWPs).
• Analyze delivery lead times and steward by AWP work packages.
• Include materials management information in each IWP.
• Tie materials management to the design model, budgets, and the AWP
implementation plan.
• Identify long lead items early (FEED) and decide whether to insource or outsource
each item.
• Consider bagging and tagging material before construction as part of materials
constraint management for work packages.
• Check required materials for IWP in advance, as part of active AWP constraint
management.
• Adopt a proactive approach to resolving materials management and logistics
issues. Identify and fix issues before they happen.
• Identify any applicable fit-for-purpose materials management technology to be
used to help ensure that AWP-related information management and constraint
management are strongly supported early in the project.
47
• Consider automating materials management data collected through the use of

auto-ID technology (e.g., passive tag and sensors) as appropriate.
• Implement a traceability system that provides the appropriate project participants
with full materials visibility.
Misperception that company already performs AWP (no change needed)

• Analyze company procedures.
• Identify differences between AWP and current company procedures.
• Look for case studies of similar companies.
• Increase education on AWP procedures.
• Participate on external events related to AWP to be more familiar with AWP
procedures.
• Obtain buy-in to implement changes on company processes to fit AWP.
Need (or perceived need) for additional project team members for AWP
• Perform an impact analysis of stakeholder organizations to determine which
positions have potential major changes to their job descriptions.
• Analyze the benefits of incorporating new resources to the team.
• Check similar companies’ organizational structures to support AWP.
• Develop job and role descriptions that address any changes to traditional jobs
that become necessary with the AWP implementation.
• Implement a program approach to a portfolio of projects instead of assigning
resources to each individual project.
• Train new AWP champions as needed.
Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP

• Identify or establish dedicated resources to support AWP implementation.
• Develop commercial terms and conditions that include AWP.
• Adopt an organizational structure to support AWP implementation.
• Provide role-oriented training.
• Create workshops based on the AWP best practices.
• Involve competent personnel early in the project.
• Identify proper technology to support AWP.
48
Owner does not include clear AWP requirements in the contract

• Owners should define clear AWP expectations in the contract.
• Owner should specify a clear and consistent AWP program.
• Include the owner playbook in the contract.
• Ensure the contract includes engineering, procurement, construction, and
commissioning and startup requirements.
• Create a clear timeline with expected deliverables.
• Enforce proper engagement time in the contract.
• Require data and model attributes specifications in the contract.
• Identify and assign AWP responsibilities in the contract.
• Define the AWP process standards to be followed.
• Define reporting intervals in the contract.
• Implement AWP early in projects with clear expectations for contractors.
• Define proper metrics to support AWP implementation.
• Track leading and lagging performance indicators for AWP.
Owner engages contractors too late to effectively implement AWP

• Include contractor engagement timing in the playbook.
• Engage contractors during the second phase of front end planning to provide
input on the path of construction.
• Rely on construction experts (consultants) if contractors have not been selected.
• Organize workshops in order to avoid late engagement of construction.
Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems

• Identify specific technology and data misalignments.
• Identify areas where the company’s information, design, and management
systems are not efficient.
• Establish standard data requirements in the contract.
• Choose the right software to ensure integration between companies’ systems.
• Establish suggested standard data requirements in the playbook.
• Determine the data flowchart.
• Implement a system that facilitates collaboration among companies in the project.
• Use software for key tasks (e.g., CWP release, IWP management, constraints
management, and AWP analytical reporting) to improve processes.
• Manage CWP handoff from engineering to construction.
• Automate repeatable tasks.
49
Previous attempt to implement AWP was considered unsuccessful

• Conduct a root cause analysis to understand the reasons for unsuccessful
implementation.
• Consider whether the previous AWP attempt was unsuccessful primarily due to
low AWP maturity level of the stakeholders, limited AWP champion and leader
roles, limited commitment, or insufficient resources, among other potential root
causes.
• Consider whether the previous attempt had appropriate AWP commitment and
buy-in from appropriate stakeholders .
• Identify AWP improvement areas from the previous attempt.
• Review experience and lessons learned from previous projects.
• Review case studies that show how similar companies implement AWP.
• Assess company AWP procedures to identify improvement areas.
• Ensure that AWP implementation is appropriately fit-for-purpose and scalable to
the project scope and complexity .
• Allocate proper resources for AWP implementation.
• Create or improve the playbook, as necessary.
• Create or improve performance metrics.
• Implement AWP early enough to obtain full alignment and a strong start.
Procurement personnel not available to provide timely input to the path of

construction
• Assign an AWP champion from procurement and supply chain.
• Ensure early engagement of the procurement AWP champion.
• Leverage supply chain management principles across multiple projects.
• Consider the procurement plan in the AWP implementation plan.
• Involve supply chain management to ensure procurement plan and AWP
alignment.
• Create an intuitive and graphical path of construction development plan to align
parties on definition of the path of construction.
• Create a central database to provide a unique and ever-updated source of data
from any vendor and any offsite location.
• Integrate AWP with vendors of long-lead materials and equipment.
• Detail materials releases according to EWP specifications.
50
Progress payments are not linked to AWP deliverables

• Define contractual requirements at bid, not after award.
• Measure progress according to AWP deliverables.
• The contractor’s bid and budget should be based on AWP deliverables (e.g.,
CWP, EWP, and IWP).
• Measure whether construction and design progress are effectively managed to
ensure timely payment.
• Develop commercial terms and conditions that include AWP; define that payments
should be linked to AWP deliverables.
Project controls not aligned with AWP

• Put in place a project controls plan that incorporates AWP.
• Align AWP package contents and structures to project controls tracking and
reporting requirements.
• Ensure the project controls team is appropriately staffed for the project’s AWP
application.
• Incorporate the project’s WBS and AWP components into project controls’ KPIs,
metrics, procedures, and reporting.
• Involve project controls in the project’s AWP program from the start.
• Include project controls personnel in interactive planning sessions and
development of the path of construction.
• Include AWP associated project controls deliverables in contract requirements,
playbooks, and so on.
• Use work package preparation and completion progress (e.g., CWPs, EWPs,
IWPs) as key content of weekly meeting reports and discussions.
• Develop project schedule content by CWAs, CWPs, EWPs, and IWPs.
• Break down cost estimates, cost tracking, cost control, and cost reporting by
AWP deliverables.
• Define nomenclature to properly define the schedule to match CWA, CWP, and
EWP.
• Provide the appropriate level of training to project controls team members.
• Document and share project controls-related lessons learned as an ongoing
feedback loop to improve the project controls processes and reporting.
• Engage project controls in management of change processes that take advantage
of detailed project data (e.g., IWPs) available through the application of AWP.
51
Silos among project team groups limiting integration

• Identify company sector that lacks AWP knowledge to allow for more efficient
development of a recovery plan.
• Assign an AWP champion role to facilitate communication and information.
• Establish methods to integrate information between stakeholders and other
groups.
• Define minimal frequency and modes of communication across team members.
• Establish project metrics focused on project success.
• Define the proper data flowchart.
• Conduct cross-functional group workshops.
• Implement interactive planning sessions.
• Reward early adopters.
Too many unknowns to effectively sequence CWPs well in advance

• Engage construction expertise early in the project.
• Conduct a constraint analysis on the project scope and project execution plan.
• Consider unknowns when developing the CWAs and CWPs’ boundaries.
• Define a timeframe to freeze scope.
• Include an efficient change management plan.
• Track changes closely.
• Ensure efficient communication between stakeholders.
• Consider a schedule contingency process to mitigate unknowns on overall project
schedule.
• Through front end planning, conduct multiple interactive planning sessions that
include the key project roles.
• Consider whether the team has completed similar projects and benchmark the
schedule for CWPs.
Too many unknowns to effectively sequence IWPs well in advance

• Perform a full constraint analysis on IWPs prior to their release.
• Use a path of construction definition (e.g., IWPs are linked to CWPs, which are
linked to CWAs) to minimize the impact of unknowns on the sequencing of IWPs.
• Conduct meetings between the planner and the superintendent during IWP
issuance to align scope of work and quality requirements.
• Create a look ahead plan.
52
• Implement a robust change management process.

• Create a backlog of constraint-free IWPs that will enable a seamless change
process.
• Create an AWP-based information management plan.
• Conduct a “backward pass” planning session to communicate engineering
deliverable need dates.
Transition from construction by area to commissioning by system

• Allocate appropriate budget for successful commissioning.
• Ensure timely inclusion of subject matter experts and vendors.
• Create a fully integrated construction-commissioning schedule with system-based
milestones.
• Gain alignment and set expectations between construction and commissioning
teams for when and how the transition will occur.
Turnover/startup personnel not available to provide timely input to the

path of construction
• Assign a commissioning and startup (CSU) champion to participate in path of
construction (PoC) development.
• Include CSU engagement timing in the contract.
• Initiate startup-driven design early (in FEED).
• Align and monitor mechanical completions with the CSU plan.
• Create an intuitive and graphical PoC development plan to align parties on PoC
definition.
• Develop and rely on internal expertise or consultants if the CSU company is not
available.
• Consider hiring pre-construction support through the engineering contractor of
a potential construction firm.
Use of a manual or paper-based IWP management system is inefficient for

the project size
• Assess feasibility to integrate a new IWP management system.
• Invest in digital data exchange.
• Define project integration flowchart to manage IWP.
• Define a data flow map.
• Resolve data discrepancies to ensure that data are reliable and consistent.
• Provide training on use of new technologies.
53
Weaknesses in overall AWP organization and coordination

• Identify company sector that lacks AWP knowledge to allow for more efficient
development of a recovery plan.
• Assign appropriate resources to support AWP implementation.
• Engage downstream “customers” early.
• Create and communicate a vision to all stakeholders.
• Establish and publish an AWP framework specific for the project.
• Assign AWP champions from engineering, procurement, construction, and startup
to manage the vision.
• Ensure operations commits resources early to participate in path of construction
(PoC) development (start with the end in mind).
• Define proper metrics to drive desired behaviors.
• Embed AWP expectations into the contracting strategy.
• Define an AWP workflow.
• Formally establish an AWP delivery excellence program, based on best practices,
that works for your organization.
• Align the payment structure with the completion of AWP deliverables.
• Scale the framework based on project size, duration, and complexity.
• Consider the AWP implications of prefabrication and modularization.
• Make the PoC visible to all.
• Develop an effective information management strategy – a real-time, single
source of truth.
• Use software for CWP release, IWP management, constraint management, and
AWP analytical reporting to improve these processes.
• Provide systematic training.
• Establish a change management process.
• Manage handoff of the CWP from engineering to construction.
• Document lessons learned.
54
Categorizing Potential Solutions by Topic

To provide another perspective for navigating the potential solutions to AWP
implementation barriers, RT-365 summarized these barriers by topic. Whereas
previous researchers had categorized potential solutions by AWP implementation
barrier, RT-365 categorized them by AWP implementation topic in a table that contained
high-level recommendations on how to conduct an efficient AWP implementation at
each phase of the project and how to avoid most implementation barriers.
Presenting the solutions by topic in a table enabled users to locate solutions that
could optimize and improve AWP implementation during a specific project phase.
Therefore, each column of the table presented the greatest variety of topics that could
be present at the same time during that phase. Hence, each project phase was broken
down into relevant sub-topics. Table 7 (on the next page) presents the phases and
topics, while Appendix A offers the complete table containing topics and sub-topics.
To use the table, first select a project phase from the headings. The column below
each heading presents relevant topics for that specific phase. In the complete table,
after choosing a specific topic, the reader can find a series of potential solutions to
improve AWP implementation.
55
56
Table 7. Potential Solutions Listed by Topic (Project Phase)
Antecedents Implementation
Pre-implementation Planning Engineering Procurement Construction CSU
• Obtaining Buy-in • Implementation • Engagement in • Engagement • Engagement • Engagement

• AWP Education Plan Project in Project in Project in Project
• Process Adherence • Contracting • Resources • Resources • Resources • Resources
• Organizational • Resources • Model Attribute • Technology • Deliverables • Deliverables

Alignment • Path of • Vendor Input Solution • Soft Crafts
• Contract Integration Construction • Deliverables • Deliverables • Change
• Scalability • Alignment • Materials Management
Management • Sequencing IWPs
• Developing IWPs
• Tracking IWPs
Chapter 6
Developing the AWP Concierge
The AWP Concierge is an interactive PDF document designed to facilitate navigation

through the barrier cards and within the relevant resources (CII 2020a; external to this
document). This user-friendly tool presents, in a navigable format, the complete content
developed in the previous chapters of this report. The AWP Concierge facilitates a
user’s access to information on how to overcome AWP implementation barriers. This
chapter presents an overview of the AWP Concierge and explains how to navigate it.
Overview
The AWP Concierge allows a user to navigate through AWP implementation barriers
according to project phases of interest. To ensure that these sections were navigable,
the team implemented clickable links and a navigation bar. The AWP Concierge is
divided into the following six sections:
1. Introduction
2. Integrated AWP Flowchart
3. List of Barriers by Implementation Step
4. Barrier Cards
5. Potential Solutions by Topic
6. List of References
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the AWP Concierge. It also provides a table
of contents, navigation instructions, and directions on how to find the appropriate
references from the supporting documents
Integrated AWP Flowchart

This section guides the user through the navigation process. Introduced by
RT-272 (CII/COAA 2013a), the integrated AWP flowchart was updated by RT-364
to incorporate improvements which that team identified (CII 2020b). Appendix B of
this report offers an overview of the integrated AWP flowchart.
57
The AWP flowchart contains the following project stages and process steps:
• Stage 0 – Pre-implementation
• Stage I – Preliminary Planning and Design
– Project Definition
– Construction, Commissioning, and Engineering Planning
– L2 Schedule Refinement and WBS Development
– CWP, EWP, and SWP Boundary Development
– Path of Construction
• Stage II – Detailed Engineering
– L3 Schedule Development
– EWP-based Controls
– L4 Detailed Construction Schedule
• Stage III – Construction Execution, Testing, and Completions
– IWP-based Controls
– Test Packages
– IWP-SWP Transition Management
• Stage IV – Energization and Commissioning
– SWP-based Controls
– Turnover to Startup
List of Barriers by Implementation Step

In this section, a user can click on a project phase or specific process step and be
taken to the Barrier List section. The Barrier List is simply a list of all the barriers that
may be encountered in the selected process step. To develop this section, RT-365
used institutional knowledge to map the processes identified in the integrated AWP
flowchart and the AWP implementation barriers. This mapping process resulted in a
table that characterizes the project phases and process step where the company may
potentially face a barrier. Appendix C maps the AWP implementation barriers across
the project phases.
58
6. Developing the AWP Concierge
Barrier Cards
This is the main section of the AWP Concierge. RT-365 developed its content by
compiling the solutions from Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. The barrier cards contain
the following three sections:
1. Potential Solutions – This section presents actions that can help a

company overcome a particular barrier. It is important to note that potential
solutions are general; therefore, one may not fit all project cases. It is up to
the user to identify and adapt the potential solutions that are suitable for the
company.
2. Supporting Documents – The supporting documents can be extensive
and contain a great variety of content; therefore, this section is divided into
four subsections:
1. Case studies 3. Company presentations
2. Expert interviews 4. Implementation support
Each subcategory points to AWP resources that are relevant to the barrier.
3. Industry Perception – Industry perception presents a barrier’s rank

according to its perceived impact on AWP implementation. The rank
is based on the findings reported in FR-DCC-04, where researchers
conducted a survey to rank barriers according to their impact (CII 2020).
Each barrier rank is presented in six categories:
1. Owners and contractors 4. Higher-maturity companies
2. Owners 5. Medium-maturity companies
3. Contractors 6. Lower-maturity companies
Appendix D gives an example of a barrier card.
Potential Solutions by Topic

This section of the AWP Concierge is explained in Chapter 5 of this report. It enables
users to find potential solutions not just by the implementation steps in the project, but
also by looking through a variety of topics that a project might face.
List of References
This section gives users access to all of the resources used to develop the barrier
cards. The reference list is drawn from the AWP-relevant resources that the team used
to identify potential solutions to overcome AWP implementation barriers.
59
Chapter 7
Conclusions
Advanced Work Packaging has proven to have a positive impact on safety, cost,
schedule, productivity, and quality performance. Currently, a significant number of
companies are implementing AWP, and some owners are adopting AWP as a standard
process for their projects. Despite all of the benefits, many companies have yet to
implement AWP and many others still have low AWP-implementation maturity levels.
RT-365 set an objective of promoting the use of AWP at the industry level. It was
necessary to first understand the industry’s challenges and needs. The research team’s
approach for promoting the use of AWP followed two steps:
1. Identify AWP implementation barriers and provide solutions to overcome

them.
2. Facilitate access to AWP implementation resources, such as reports, case
studies, and presentations.
The team recommended more than 500 solutions that can address the 78 AWP
implementation barriers it identified and analyzed. The team grouped the most significant
barriers into the following four categories:
1. Company is unconvinced of AWP benefits.

2. Company has a limited understanding of AWP concepts, processes, and
tools.
3. Lack of organizational alignment during AWP implementation
4. Poor integration of AWP and engineering processes
For companies that are not convinced of AWP’s benefits and therefore not advancing
the implementation of this practice, RT-365 recommends the following actions:
• Employees should review available case studies and presentations that highlight
the benefits of AWP.
• These companies should review their execution performance to see how AWP
could improve them.
• They should also consider how AWP might be implemented as part of their
continuous improvement programs.
• In addition, it is important to realize that AWP can be scaled down for small
projects.
61
Solutions to improving AWP understanding relate to those companies that are

aware of AWP benefits but are still working through institutionalizing AWP in their
organizations:
• In this case, it is important to establish roles and job descriptions that incorporate
the AWP core competencies. This means either creating new roles for AWP or
introducing AWP roles into existing or current project roles.
• Also, consolidating and organizing the available content into a condensed
playbook can provide the direction for AWP implementation.
• Furthermore, to expand AWP understanding, companies should consider going
beyond a project-level AWP approach to a program-level approach.
• Finally, companies should establish knowledge areas or dedicated working
groups where AWP practitioners and experts could come together to trade
lessons learned.
The following recommendations deal with a lack of organizational alignment:

• Assign an AWP champion to address the broader goals of AWP implementation
in the organization.
• Another strategy is to drive stakeholder engagement and empower them to
develop AWP implementation strategies.
• AWP processes and tools should be fit-for-purpose.
• Moreover, AWP implementation needs to include feedback loops as a means to
periodically assess how well things are working and adjust accordingly.
Assignment of an AWP engineering champion is critical to enhancing integration

between AWP and engineering processes:
• Not only is the AWP engineering champion a single point of contact to whom the
team could reach out for guidance; he or she is also an advocate of the program
for the project and the company.
• Engineering interfaces should be planned in advance to ensure the company
utilizes the right information at the right time.
• Another solution is establishing a training program to help the engineering team
understand the processes and tools.
• Finally, companies can address the engineering integration barrier by forming
a collaborative contract where they incentivize engineering contractors for
deliverables and the data required to effectively apply AWP.
62
7. Conclusions
The research team’s deliverable, the AWP Concierge (SP365-1), includes solutions
to the AWP implementation barriers it identified:
• The AWP Concierge classifies barriers by phase, starting from the pre-
implementation phase and proceeding through commissioning and startup.
• For each barrier, the AWP Concierge includes potential solutions that can come
together to help companies promote the use of advanced work packaging.
• Another goal of the AWP Concierge was to facilitate access to AWP implementation
resources, such as reports, case studies, and presentations. The AWP Concierge
links to more than 50 supporting documents that directly address the barriers to
AWP implementation. The documents also offer ways to mitigate these barriers,
while providing details on potential solutions.
• Currently, the AWP Concierge mainly focuses on providing recommended
solutions to AWP implementation barriers. To shift from a passive approach to a
proactive approach, researchers could seek ways to apply artificial intelligence
and machine-learning concepts. These additions would enable companies to
identify and mitigate potential barriers before they affect project performance.
63
Bibliography
Autodesk (2018). “Autodesk Construction Technology for Advanced Work Packaging.”

AWP Conference 2018, Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
Autodesk (2019). “Autodesk Construction Technology for AWP.” AWP Conference 2019,
Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
Autodesk (2019). “Scalable AWP Requirements.” AWP Conference 2019, Houston,
TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
Bentley Systems (2018). “AWP via ConstructSim and Synchro.” AWP Conference 2018,
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and
Code Development. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
BrandSafway (2017). “Innovation, Technology & Capabilities for Access.”. AWP
Conference 2017, Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
BrandSafway (2018). “Innovation, Technology & Capabilities for Access.” AWP
Bryden Wood (2019). “Creating Total Value – Disruptive technologies changing asset
design + delivery.” AWP Conference 2019, Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
CCI International (2018). “Measuring AWP Success.” AWP Conference 2018, Houston,
CCI International (2018). “Creating Your AWP Playbook.” AWP Conference 2018,
CCT International (2017). “Leveraging C3D® to Ensure Compliance of Site Execution
Teams.” AWP Conference 2017, Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
CCT International (2018). “C3D – Intelligent AWP Planning and Management.” AWP
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis (Second Edition). London, UK: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
CII (2017). Managing Transitions between Construction Completion, Pre-Commissioning,
Commissioning, and Startup. Special Publication 333-1. Austin, TX: Construction
Industry Institute.
CII (2019). “AWP Activities at CII.” AWP Conference 2019, Houston, TX. Retrieved on
April 23, 2020.
CII (2019a). Bridging the Gap between Design and Construction Models to Improve
Advanced Work Packaging. Final Report TC-01. Austin, TX: Construction Industry
Institute.
CII (2020). Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging – Phase 1. Final Report
DCC-04. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
65
CII (2020a). AWP Concierge. Special Publication 365-1. Austin, TX: Construction
Industry Institute.
CII (2020b). Expanding AWP through Commissioning. Final Report 364. Austin, TX:
CII and COAA (Construction Owners Association of Alberta) (2013). Advanced Work
Packaging: Design through Workface Execution. Volume I: Implementation Resource
272-2, Version 3.1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII/COAA (2013a). Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Guidance. Volume II:
Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry
Institute.
CII/COAA (2013b). Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Case Studies and
Expert Interviews. Volume III: Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1. Austin,
TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII/COAA (2015). Validating Advanced Work Packaging as a Best Practice: A Game
Changer. Implementation Resource 319-2. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII/COAA (2015a). Making the Case for Advanced Work Packaging as a Standard (Best)
Practice. Research Summary 319-1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
Clarke, V., and Braun, V. (2013). “Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges
and developing strategies for effective learning.” Psychologist, 26(2), 120-123.
COAA (2012). “Best Practices Conference 2012” (Online). Available at: https://www.coaa.
ab.ca/conferences/best-practice-conference-2012/ (Accessed: October 16, 2020).
COAA (2017a). “AWP Scalability: AWP Steering Committee.” AWP Conference 2017,
COAA (2017b). “Mindfulness in AWP Execution.” AWP Conference 2017, Houston, TX.
Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
COAA (2017c). “Tips for Success and Traps to Avoid: Questions.” AWP Conference
2017, Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
COAA (2017d). “Tips for Success and Traps to Avoid: Responses.” AWP Conference
COAA (2018). “AWP Resource Readiness.” AWP Conference 2018, Houston, TX.
COAA (2018a). “COAA AWP Scalability Project: Release of the Report.” AWP
COAA (2018b). “COAA AWP Scalability Project: Breakout Session.” AWP Conference
COAA (2018c). “Familiarity-Complexity Screening Tool (v3.1).” AWP Conference 2018,
COAA (2018d). Scalable Advanced Work Packaging. COP-AWP-PBP-XX-2018-v1.
Edmonton, AB: Construction Owners Association of Alberta.
66
Bibliography
COAA (2019). Scalable Advanced Work Packaging Report. COP-SWP-PBP-01-2019-v1.

Edmonton, AB: Construction Owners Association of Alberta.
COAA (2020). “COAA Library” (Online). Available at: https://www.coaa.ab.ca/library/
(Accessed: April 23, 2020).
Consolidated Contractors Company (2019). “BIM, Lean and AWP: How Do They Fit
Together?” AWP Conference 2019, Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
Construct-X (2019). “Building a Great AWP Experience.” AWP Conference 2019,
Corbin, J., Strauss, A (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Fourth Edition). Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE Publishing, Inc.
Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (Fourth Edition). Los Angeles,
CA: SAGE Publishing, Inc.
Fluor Corporation (2017). “Construction and Fabrication.” AWP Conference 2017,
Fluor Corporation (2019). “Fluor’s approach to AWP in the EAME region.” AWP
Conference 2019, London, UK. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
Group ASI (2017). “AWP Scalability Supplemental Files.” AWP Conference 2017,
Group ASI (2017a). “Leading Indicators and Dashboarding for Advanced Work
Packaging.” AWP Conference 2017, Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
Group ASI (2017b). “Path of Construction: Enhancing the Best Practice for Engineering
& Supply Chain to Support AWP Implement.” AWP Conference 2017, Houston, TX.
Group ASI (2018). “AWP Technology Experts Panel.” AWP Conference 2018, Houston,
Group ASI (2018a). “Changing the Culture.” AWP Conference 2018, Houston, TX.
Group ASI (2018b). “Creating an AWP-Centric Organization.” AWP Conference 2018,
Group ASI (2018c). “Procurement in the AWP Environment.” AWP Conference 2018,
Group ASI (2019). “Achieving 21st Century Project Outcomes using AWP.” AWP
Group ASI (2019a). “An AWP Primer: The Principles of Advanced Work Packaging.”
AWP Conference 2019, London, UK. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
Group ASI (2019b). “AWP Alignment: A Comprehensive Framework for Consistent
Alignment Between Stakeholders.” AWP Conference 2019, London, UK. Retrieved
on April 23, 2020.
67
Group ASI (2019c). “Construction’s Digital Transformation: The Current State of BIM
and Digital Construction in the UK.” AWP Conference 2019, London, UK. Retrieved
on April 23, 2020.
Group ASI (2019d). “Global Adoption of AWP.” AWP Conference 2019, London, UK.
Group ASI (2019e). “Using Data And Metrics To Track AWP Project Lifecycle
Performance.” AWP Conference 2019, London, UK. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
Insight-AWP (2019). “If You Build the Cloud, They Will Come.” AWP Conference 2019,
King, M., and Hoog, R. (2018). “The Path to Our AWP Playbook.” AWP Conference
Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., and de Eyto, A. (2018). “Ensuring Rigor in
Qualitative Data Analysis: A Design Research Approach to Coding Combining NVivo
With Traditional Material Methods.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods.
17: 1–13. Sage Publication Ltd.
O’Brien, W. J., and Ponticelli, S (2016). Transforming the Industry: Advanced Work
Packaging as a Standard (Best) Practice. Research Report 319-11. Austin, TX:
O3 Solution (2017). “Providing Oversight & Accountability to Drive AWP Program
Success.” AWP Conference 2017, Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
O3 Solution (2018). “Delivering Scalable AWP in Operating Facilities.” AWP Conference
O3 Solutions (2019). “Maximising of Advanced Work Packaging.” AWP Conference
Richard, J., and Klick, D. (2018). “Tiger (A04) AWP Implementation.” AWP Conference
Southern Company. (2017). “Southern Company’s AWP Implementation – 24 Months
and Counting.” AWP Conference 2017, Houston, TX. Retrieved on April 23, 2020.
Swaine, M. (2019). “Tiger (A04) AWP Implementation.” AWP Conference 2019, Houston,
68
Appendix A
Potential Solutions by Topic
Antecedents Implementation
Pre-implementation Planning Engineering Procurement Construction CSU
Pre-implementation
Antecedents
Obtaining Buy-in:
• Recognize potential benefits of AWP.
• Look for case studies similar to company’s projects.
• Educate stakeholders on AWP.
• Understand potential ROI.
• Ensure broad understanding across company that implementing AWP well can
improve numerous project performance dimensions.
• Reward early AWP adopters within the company.
• Analyze AWP impact to project safety, cost, schedule, quality, operability, and so
on.
• Ensure buy-in at all levels.
• Network further with other companies regarding actual AWP implementation
experience
AWP Education:
• Study the foundational AWP publications and resources.
• Understand the basic AWP knowledge areas, including the following:
– AWP concepts
– Implementation benefits
– Alignment between AWP and contract strategy
– Dedicated staff to AWP
– Processes
– Benchmarking (metrics)
– Among others
• Assess company AWP maturity level and corresponding expected benefits from
AWP implementation.
• Review case studies and expert interviews that provide an overview of how
companies implement AWP.
• Create a role-based (e.g., owner, EPC, contractor) AWP playbook.
• Maintain up-to-date AWP best practices.
• Educate and train via an AWP playbook.
• Audit against AWP playbook requirements and responsibilities.
69
Pre-implementation (continued)
Antecedents
Process Adherence:
• Assess AWP maturity assessment level.
• Understand and define AWP project integration flowcharts.
• Develop a functional role or job description.
• Assign AWP champions.
• Conduct a contractor prequalification assessment.
• Define AWP expectations in contract language.
Organizational Alignment:
• Identify company sector that lacks AWP knowledge.
• Assign appropriate resources to support AWP implementation.
• Create and communicate a vision to all stakeholders.
• Establish and publish an AWP framework specific for the project.
• Assign AWP champions from engineering, procurement, construction, and startup.
• Embed AWP expectations into contracting strategy.
• Define an AWP workflow.
• Formally establish an AWP delivery excellence program based on best practice.
• Develop an effective information management strategy.
• Provide systematic training.
• Establish a change management process.
• Establish a lesson learned documentation process.
Contract Integration:
• Select compensation selection.
• Select contract structure and compensation basis selection.
• Define major AWP contractual deliverables by stage assessments.
• Define what aspects of AWP could improve project performance considering
contract size.
• Identify AWP scalability potential.
• Implement scalable AWP to fit contract size.
• Review cases studies of projects with similar size.
• Consider deploying in phases.
• Align payment structure with completion of AWP deliverables.
Scalability:
• Determine AWP scalability according to companies’ maturity level and
expectations.
• Consider implementing AWP on pilot projects first.
• Scale framework based on project size, duration, and complexity.
70
Appendix A: Potential Solutions by Topic
Planning
Implementation
Implementation Plan:
• Create an AWP framework.
• Define information flowchart.
• Ensure input from participants to develop plan.
• Define engagement period for all the participants.
• Consider deploying in phases.
• Define proper metrics and KPIs.
• Develop organizational chart to support AWP.
• Create an overall AWP framework or plan for the project with input from all
organizations involved (basis for alignment).
• Listen to concern and questions related to AWP implementation.
Contracting:
• Develop a contract that clearly explain the AWP requirements.
• Define the AWP process standards to be followed.
• Clearly state AWP requirements.
• Define progress reporting periods.
• Define AWP champions and responsibilities.
• Link payments to AWP deliverables.
• Include owner playbook in contract.
• Ensure contract includes engineering, procurement, construction, and
commissioning and startup requirements.
• Create clear timeline with expected deliverables.
• Enforce proper engagement time in contract.
• Require data and model attributes specifications in contract.
• Define proper metrics to support AWP implementation.
Resources:
• Adopt organizational structure to support implementation.
• Identify or establish dedicated resources to support implementation.
• Ensure operations commits resources early.
• Involve competent personnel early on project.
• Provide role-oriented training.
• Create workshops based on the best practices.
• Identify proper technology to support AWP.
Path of Construction:
• Adopt “end-in-mind” thinking when developing the path of construction (PoC).
• Ensure participation from engineering, construction, procurement, and
commissioning and startup.
• Make PoC visible to all.
71
Planning (continued)
Implementation
Alignment:
• Create an AWP-based information management plan.
• Develop a process to stay ahead of field construction.
• Consider effective AWP staff and champions to help transition from design to field
execution; look at contract basis to ensure continuity from the office to the field.
• Establish project work breakdown structure (WBS) so that progress through
preliminary planning and design and the detailed design phases can be adequately
monitored.
• Ensure that field strategy is based on AWP elements (i.e., CWAs, CWPs, and
IWPs).
• Obtain buy-in from top management all the way to field crews (i.e., superintendent,
general foreman, foreman, and field crew).
• Obtain input from engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning and
startup teams on integrating AWP strategy in project scope.
• Ensure AWP training is reaching field supervision and crews to the proper extent
and at a proper time.
• Set expectations between construction and commissioning teams for when and
how the transition will occur.
Engineering
Engagement in Project:
• Engage engineering to develop a collaborative contract.
• Ensure engineering input in developing the path of construction.
Resources:
• Assign AWP champions specifically to engineering.
• Develop a training program.
• Develop onboarding training.
• Provide training to ease transition to new tools and reduce growing pains for
producing deliverables.
Model Attribute:
• Identify AWP requirements during front end planning to ensure engineering
understands expectations.
• Develop an AWP model attribute best practice.
• Define CWA, EWP, and CWP attributes that should be included in the model.
• Include AWP-related model attributes requirements in contract.
• Define standards in the 3D model development.
• Include 3D model as an engineering contractual deliverable.
• Determine organizational attributes during early stage of the AWP process.
• Conduct training through technology provider.
• Measure progress in the field and then update the model with construction
progress based on AWP deliverables.
72
Engineering (continued)
Implementation
Vendor input:
• Obtain vendor data early.
• Engage vendor during front end planning to participate in developing the path of
construction.
Deliverables:
• Use best practices to determine EWP content.
• Use EWP readiness.
• Measure engineering progress according to AWP deliverables.
• Conduct a “backward pass” planning session to communicate engineering
deliverable need dates.
Procurement
• Engage commissioning and startup in front end planning to support developing the
path of construction.
Resources:
• Develop ad hoc procedures to each participant to support AWP.
Technology solution:
• Create a central database to provide a unique and ever-updated source of data,
from any vendor and any offsite location.
Deliverables:
• Identify long lead items early (FEED).
• Conduct procurement based on AWP deliverables.
• Tie procurement deliverables to AWP deliverables.
• Integrate AWP with vendors of long-lead materials and equipment.
• Detail material releases according to EWP specifications.
73
Procurement (continued)
Implementation
Materials Management:
• Include a section for materials management in each IWP.
• Tie materials management to design model, budgets, and implementation plan.
• Check required materials for IWP in advance.
• Engage vendors early.
• Ensure efficient information exchange among vendor, contractor, and
subcontractors.
• Set inventory backlog in advance.
• Develop detailed bill of materials.
• Analyze delivery lead time.
• Identify long lead items early (FEED) and decide whether to insource or outsource
each item.
• Include a section for materials management in each IWP.
• Include a section for materials management in each EWP.
• Tie materials management to design model, budgets, and implementation plan.
• Check required materials for IWP in advance.
• Adopt a proactive approach on issue resolution (identify and fix issues before they
happen).
• Apply technology early in the project to support AWP implementation throughout
project lifecycle.
• Automate data collected through the use of auto-ID technology (e.g., passive tag
and sensors).
• Implement a traceability system to give the various project participants full
materials visibility.
Construction
• Engage construction expertise during front end planning to support developing the
path of construction.
Resources:
• Provide training specifically to superintendent level and similar roles.
74
Construction (continued)
Implementation
Deliverables:
• Use best practices to develop CWPs.
• Establish formal CWP release process.
• Conduct a constraint analysis on the project scope and project execution plan.
• Consider unknowns when developing the CWAs and CWPs’ boundaries.
• Consider a schedule contingency process to mitigate unknowns on overall project
schedule.
Soft Crafts:
• Align scaffolding management plan with AWP implementation plan.
• Engage soft crafts early on the project.
• Include scaffolding management in IWPs’ content.
• Implement software that efficiently supports integration between soft crafts and
AWP implementation.
Change Management:
• Review company’s change management procedures.
• Incorporate best practices into change management procedures.
• Provide training to change management staff.
• Conduct a constraint analysis on project execution plan and project scope.
• Provide systematic training and change management process.
• Improve communication channels within company.
• Create efficient data and information flowcharts.
• Ensure proper technology solution is being used.
Sequencing IWPs:
• Implement a robust change management process.
• Use path of construction definition (e.g., IWPs are linked to CWPs, which are linked
to CWAs) to minimize the impact of the unknowns on the IWPs sequencing.
• Create a backlog of constraint-free IWPs that will enable a seamless change
process.
• Conduct meeting between planner and superintendent during IWP issuance to
align scope of work and quality requirements.
• Create a look-ahead plan.
75
Construction (continued)
Implementation
Developing IWPs:
• Review company’s IWP development procedures.
• Adopt best practices while scoping and sizing IWPs.
• Discuss IWP development with the responsible safety, quality, superintendent, and
craft personnel in a preparatory meeting.
• Use best practices to scope and size IWPs.
• Size IWP according to scope of work.
• Define standards to IWP scoping and sizing.
• Analyze AWP scalability to project.
• Utilize proper technology solution to ensure efficient IWP creation.
• Create WFP template per IWP type.
• Train WFP team how to scope and size IWPs.
• Sign each IWP before the beginning of field activities to increase accountability.
• Conduct IWP quality check.
• Structure IWPs by discipline to identify clear interdependencies and to improve
sequencing between the different crews.
• Do not overload the IWP with irrelevant information.
Tracking IWPs:
• Track non-compliance in IWPs.
• Manage IWP in conjunction with field supervisors.
• Develop an intelligent IWP numbering system.
• Provide feedback to planner on progress and issues arising in the field to plan
effectively.
Commissioning and Startup

Implementation
• Engage commissioning and startup during front end planning to support developing
the path of construction.
• Initiate startup-driven design early (in FEED).
• Ensure early involvement and proactive engagement by operations for smooth and
efficient handover of the facility.
Resources:
Deliverables:
• Ensure effective transition from construction by area to commissioning by system.
• Create a fully integrated construction-commissioning schedule with system-based
milestones.
• Align and monitor mechanical completions with commissioning and startup plan.
76
Appendix B
Integrated AWP Flowchart
STAGE 0
Pre-implementation
Start AWP
Implementation
Journey
STAGE I
Preliminary Planning and Design
Construction, L2 Schedule CWP, EWP,

Project Commissioning, Refinement and and SWP Path of
Definition and Engineering WBS Boundary Construction
Planning Development Development
CWA Level
Definition Schedule
STAGE II
Detailed Engineering
L3 Schedule EWP-based L4 Detailed

Development Controls Construction
Schedule
CWP Level IWP

Definition Schedule
STAGE III STAGE IV

Construction Execution, Energization and
Testing, and Completions Commissioning
IWP-based IWP–SWP SWP-based Turnover to

Test Packages Transition
Controls Controls Startup
Management
77
Appendix C: Mapping AWP Implementation Barriers across Project Phases
Commissioning
Construction
Engineering
STAGE IV –
STAGE III –
STAGE II –
STAGE I –
STAGE 0
Design
Pre-implementation
Project Definition
and Engineering Planning

Construction, Commissioning,
and WBS Development

L2 Schedule Refinement
Boundary Development
CWP, EWP, and SWP
Path of Construction
L3 Schedule Development
EWP-based Controls
Schedule
L4 Detailed Construction
IWP-based Controls
Test Packages
Management
IWP-SWP Transition
SWP-based Controls
Turnover to Startup
Awaiting more industry AWP project results before implementing X X
AWP program is not owner-driven X X X X X X
Belief that experienced field leadership and crews can construct without IWPs X X X X
Cannot find the right technology solution X X X X X X X X X X X X
Changes to roles of individuals when implementing AWP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Company not interested in implementing AWP X X X

Construction company not available to provide timely input to the path of X X X X X X X X X X X X
construction
Contract size does not support AWP implementation X X
Contractor does not buy in early enough X X X
Cost to implement X X X
79
80
Commissioning
Construction
Engineering
STAGE IV –
STAGE III –
STAGE II –
STAGE I –
STAGE 0
Design
Pre-implementation
Project Definition

and WBS Development

CWP, EWP, and SWP
EWP-based Controls
Schedule
IWP-based Controls
Test Packages
Management
IWP-SWP Transition
SWP-based Controls
Turnover to Startup
Current company culture does not fully support AWP X X
Current company processes would have to be revised to include AWP X X
Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP X X X X X X X
Difficulty in making AWP fit-for-purpose on various sizes of projects X X
Difficulty in scoping and sizing IWPs X X X
Difficulty with ongoing tracking and closing of IWPs X X X

Do not need AWP because current project performance and results are good X X
enough
Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence X X X X X X
Expectation of limited (or no) benefits to company from AWP X X
External push-back X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Inconsistency in AWP implementation due to lack of structured process X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Commissioning
Construction
Engineering
STAGE IV –
STAGE III –
STAGE II –
STAGE I –
STAGE 0
Design
Pre-implementation
Project Definition

and WBS Development

CWP, EWP, and SWP
EWP-based Controls
Schedule
IWP-based Controls
Test Packages
Management
IWP-SWP Transition
SWP-based Controls
Turnover to Startup

Internal push-back X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and contract type X X
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and project phases X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and project scope X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Lack of attributes in the design model X X X
Lack of AWP champion or leadership X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Lack of buy-in X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Lack of efficient and on-time scaffolding management X X X X
Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency X
Lack of interorganizational coordination following a scope change X X X X X X X X X
Lack of ongoing alignment between owner, contractors, suppliers, and others X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

81
82
Commissioning
Construction
Engineering
STAGE IV –
STAGE III –
STAGE II –
STAGE I –
STAGE 0
Design
Pre-implementation
Project Definition

and WBS Development

CWP, EWP, and SWP
EWP-based Controls
Schedule
IWP-based Controls
Test Packages
Management
IWP-SWP Transition
SWP-based Controls
Turnover to Startup
Lack of training X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Late AWP implementation X X
Late owner-furnished items or information X X X X X X X X X
Low level of AWP maturity among contractors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Maintaining a constraint-free backlog of IWPs throughout the project X X X X
Materials management and logistics issues (materials to the workface) X X X
Misperception that company already performs AWP (no change needed) X X
Need (or perceived need) for additional project team members for AWP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Owner does not include clear AWP requirements in the contract X X X X X
Owner engages contractors too late to effectively implement AWP X X X X X X X X X X X
Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems X X X

Commissioning
Construction
Engineering
STAGE IV –
STAGE III –
STAGE II –
STAGE I –
STAGE 0
Design
Pre-implementation
Project Definition

and WBS Development

CWP, EWP, and SWP
EWP-based Controls
Schedule
IWP-based Controls
Test Packages
Management
IWP-SWP Transition
SWP-based Controls
Turnover to Startup

Previous attempt to implement AWP was considered unsuccessful X

Procurement personnel not available to provide timely input to the path of X X X X X X X X X X X X
construction
Progress payments are not linked to AWP deliverables X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Project controls not aligned with AWP X X X X X X
Silos among project team groups limiting integration X X X X X X X X X
Too many unknowns to effectively sequence CWPs well in advance X X X X X X X X X X X X
Too many unknowns to effectively sequence IWPs well in advance X X X X
Transition from construction by area to commissioning by system X X X

Turnover/startup personnel not available to provide timely input to the path of X X X X X X X X X X X X
construction
Use of a manual or paper-based IWP management system is inefficient for the X X
project size
Weaknesses in overall AWP organization and coordination X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
83
Appendix D
Examples of Barrier Cards
85
Appendix E
Summary of Interviews
Expert Interview A
Introduction to the Company and its Expert

The interviewee (Expert A) works for an engineering company (Company A) that
focuses mainly on engineering and procurement projects. Company A is the sister
company of an EPC company that does mostly EPC lump-sum projects.
Expert A recognizes that, in order to have a successful AWP implementation,

the ideal model is an EPC project. Therefore, Company A has started to develop a
construction element in the company. AWP implementation has been disruptive to the
company’s processes. Expert A declares that the company culture is changing, along
with how its engineering approaches projects:
• The company went through restructuring to ensure that engineering can support
AWP in its processes.
• Currently, the company has already developed its standards and nomenclature,
which are being used in the company’s standards processes.
• Software automates the repeatable work, which makes engineering work less
overwhelming.
• The company is providing training to ensure that engineers understand the AWP
principles and processes.
• One essential training pointed out by Expert A is on how engineering deliverables
should follow the path of construction, ensuring that the information, materials,
and fabrication are flowing in a way that supports the construction sequence.
Company A is striving to establish AWP as the standard process for the company.
Expert A sees AWP as being scalable to all project sizes when the company has a
structured program. The company currently applies AWP in all EPC projects, even if
the projects are smaller.
87
AWP’s Impact on Engineering Processes

According to Expert A, AWP has a significant impact on engineering cost. Assume
that a company wants to implement AWP but does not have a structured process and
technology that support AWP. Although it may seem like a great expense to use the
industry’s best practices to develop an AWP program, train the engineers, and adopt
the technology that supports AWP, the cost increase is not significant compared to
all the benefits that AWP brings to the overall project. Once the company defines the
processes and gets its people trained, Expert A assumes that the cost of AWP is going
to add less than 10% to its engineering budget.
Barriers and Potential Solutions

This interview discussed the following barriers:
• A change in how engineering approaches a project
• Construction representative not available to provide timely input to the path of
construction
• Cost to implement AWP
• Defining AWP scalability
• Engineers have not been trained to design considering the path of construction
• Lack of attributes in the design model
• Lack of AWP requirements standards within owners
A change in how engineering approaches a project

Due to a lack of training on AWP processes, engineering perceives that it must
do out-of-sequence work. Traditionally, designing the piping system for a specific
area would usually mean that the engineers first are going to do the bore pipes
and then all of the screw pipe. However, this approach does not fit AWP needs,
because it does not consider the construction sequence. To perform in the right
sequence, an engineer would first do all of the pipes (regardless of the pipe
specification) for the area that is going to be executed first, and then all of the
pipes for the area that is going to be executed next, and the process would repeat
itself for the ensuing areas.
The solution to this barrier is to educate engineering on AWP processes. Develop

a transparent process to ensure that engineering deliverables are following the
path of constructions. Implement the right technology to support implementation
and automate repeatable tasks.
88
Appendix E: Summary of Interviews
Construction representative not available to provide timely input to the path

of construction
The contract is structured to create different situations regarding the construction
engagement timeframe. If it is an EPC project, the barrier is less difficult to overcome
compared to an EP and C project. In an EPC project, information collaboration
is more efficient. Hence, it is easier to obtain construction input and develop the
path of construction. To overcome this barrier in an EPC project, construction
should be engaged early in the planning phase.
This barrier is more common in a scenario where one company performs EP

and a different company performs C. Sometimes engineering starts the design
phase before the construction bid has been awarded to any company. The owner
should ensure that a construction representative is engaged early in the project
to provide the input needed. Another potential solution to this barrier is to rely on
internal expertise or construction consultants to define the construction sequence.
Cost to implement AWP

At the beginning of the implementation journey, the costs to implement AWP in
engineering may be higher than opting to perform engineering traditionally. Once
the company has adequately structured the AWP program, this cost tends to go
down. As was mentioned before, after implementing the right technology and
providing training to engineers, Expert A believes that implementing AWP would
add less than 10% to the engineering budget.
The engineering firms should consult relevant references that point to AWP’s
return on investment, showing that executing AWP is prone to reduce the total
installed cost, improve safety, and reduce schedule. Once the company has
developed an efficient AWP program, trained its engineers, and is using the
proper technology, the cost to implement AWP is not going to be relevant given
all of the benefits brought about by its implementation.
Defining AWP scalability for engineering firm

Company A implements AWP in all EPC, regardless of project size, although
Expert A recognizes that this is only feasible because the company has processes
and systems in place to make AWP implementation efficient. AWP may not be
feasible for smaller companies that do not have access to technologies that
automate the implementation process.
89
The technology used by Company A enables the integration of the document

control system, vendor data, and schedules, which can be linked to the 3D model
during engineering. After linking the information to the 3D model, it is possible to
have a visual progress model. The progress model provides information related
to elements that have been issued for approval, issued for construction, issued
to the fabricator, if the fabricator has begun and if the field has received those
elements.
Engineers have not been trained to design considering the path of

construction
Engineers are trained in how to engineer most cost-effectively, and that does not
always support the construction phase. Part of this training program involves the
documentation of the path of construction. Company A uses the interactive planning
method to document the path of construction. Initially, the CWAs are mapped out
from the plot plans, and then the CWAs are broken down into CWPs. Construction
should guide engineering on how the project is going to be executed. After the
project team has fully grasped how the activities are going to be sequenced,
engineering can develop the EWPs based on the path of construction.

Engineering may be challenged to define the right model attributes, since
traditional engineering models do not always consider the construction sequence.
To support AWP implementation, the model should include some attributes (e.g.,
spool numbers, skilled piece marks, pipe supports, CWPs). The model should
contain details that are not usual to traditional engineering, but that construction
needs for planning purposes.
The integrity of the data is also essential, creating standards and consistently
presenting data in the model. A field planner should utilize the 3D model to select
the material that is going to be installed in one to two weeks of work in IWP and
make it constraint-free.
It is crucial to define the model attributes to make the engineering model

construction-friendly and to support the field planner. A 3D engineering model
that contains all of the attributes should be recognized as a deliverable to support
construction.
90
Lack of AWP requirements standards within owners

Companies put an automated system in place to support AWP implementation.
This system uses predefined standards, for example, standard nomenclature and
a numbering system. According to Expert A, no nomenclature and numbering
standards exist across the industry. When the engineering contractor is required
to use the owner’s standards, using the automated systems becomes a challenge.
Engineers have to change their nomenclature and standard, reducing the efficiency
of their work.
The engineering firm should understand the basic core principles of AWP, and
the owner should ensure that these principles are being followed. But to have an
efficient process, the engineering firm should be able to select the tools.
Expert Interview B

Company B is an owner that works in the oil and gas sector. As an owner, the
company wants to ensure that AWP is being implemented efficiently and that all
processes are aligned across all stakeholders. The owner should ensure that multiple
work fronts are opened, and to do that, engineering has to comprehend the construction
plan. Another role the owner should take on is to ensure that the original engineering
set-up supports AWP implementation, thus checking how the engineering deliverables
are set up.

According to Expert B, engineers currently invest considerable effort up front
to understand and define the proper way to implement AWP in a project. Hence,
engineering is not being as efficient as it could be. This barrier emerges because of a
lack of skilled staff available to define the AWP process within the engineering sector
and then to align the deliverables with construction.
The company can achieve the expected benefits from AWP if it will invest in education
and training on how to implement AWP. This approach enables the company to introduce
best practices to its processes, obtain lessons learned from previous projects, and
thereby establish continuous improvement in the AWP program.
91

• Aligning engineering deliverables with the path of construction
• Lack of documentation system to support an AWP implementation
• Lack of skilled resources to implement AWP
• Low maturity level among engineering contractor
Aligning engineering deliverables with the path of construction

Considering the path of construction enables engineering to deliver information
in a way that supports construction. If the engineering does not develop a path of
construction or uses an incorrect path of construction, the AWP implementation is
not going to be effective. Expert B mentioned an example related to foundations.
When designing the foundation, there may be a primary foundation, a secondary
foundation, and paving. All of these foundations’ phases are on different levels
and all are going to be executed in a specific order. If engineering aggregates
them in the same CWP and does not set up their deliverables correctly, there is a
chance that the drawings issued are not going to support the path of construction.
Another issue that can influence the alignment between engineering deliverables
and the path of construction is obtaining vendor data in a timely manner. Once
a team has started to develop the path of construction, it may face constraints
regarding equipment that does not permit the execution of the path of construction
previously developed.
Lack of documentation system to support an AWP implementation

Some engineering contractors do not have a documentation system set up to
meet the AWP requirements. Occasionally, the system does not include key
information to enable an effective IWP creation. For example, if the documentation
system does not have the right attributes to reflect the CWP, this can become a
challenge when issued to the field.
92
Low maturity level among engineering contractor

Many contractors lack the capacity to perform AWP efficiently. According to
Expert B, one root cause for the low maturity among engineering contractors is
the lack of skilled resources. Engineers are not used to approaching the design
phase with a construction mindset, which makes it hard to align engineering
deliverables with AWP requirements.
The owner should always conduct a prequalification analysis to ensure that

engineering contractors have a clear understanding of AWP concepts and
procedures, have a reliable methodology, and are able to adapt the process to
improve construction efficiency. It is also essential to ensure that the engineering
contractor has the technological capabilities to implement AWP and meet all the
requirements for the project. One way to analyze the engineering contractor’s
AWP processes efficiently is to look into past projects the contractor developed.
Expert Interview C

Company C takes the owner’s role in oil and gas projects. Although the company
does not use AWP terms and definitions for FPSO projects, its methodology is very
similar, and the goals it tries to achieve are also similar to other projects that implement
AWP. The project and its requirements may vary according to the location, project type,
contracting strategy, and project scope.
Company C does not use the AWP terms and definitions for FPSO projects because
the fabrication yards have their own operating system, and Company C does not have
the flexibility to dictate how the yards are going to operate. Therefore, for FPSO projects,
Company C relies on external expertise.
For other types of offshore contracts, Company C performs and coordinates

engineering, which enables the company to start engineering ahead of time. Expert C
affirms that sometimes when a project is approved, the detailed engineering is basically
ready, and that can be beneficial to the project schedule.
The owner is responsible for ensuring that contractors meet the requirements laid
down for them. To make sure that the contractor is capable of fulfilling the expectation,
Company C conducts a prequalification analysis. Currently, the company is trying to
reduce its specific requirements, since it has not been able to meet all the stipulated
requirements. The revision of the prequalification requirements is changing the process
toward industry standards instead of company-specific norms.
93

Expert C works on offshore projects in which AWP is not formally implemented.
Often, engineering is done before the project goes through the fabrication process, and
this can lead to a disconnection between them. Thus, to make engineering more efficient
and to increase schedule predictability, Company C tends to bring in the fabricator
early into the project. Having the fabricator on board early, the project team can work
on layouts and engineering processes, such as lifting plans and fabrication sequence.
As a result, the team can develop a design that is most suitable for the project.

• Alignment between engineering and fabrication contracts in offshore projects
• Lack of quality control and quality assurance
• Construction representative participation during the engineering phase
Alignment between engineering and fabrication contracts in offshore projects

There can be a disconnect between engineering and fabrication in offshore projects,
which do not use an EPC contract. It is mandatory to engage fabrication early
in the project to ensure proper alignment between engineering and fabrication;
however, that is not always what occurs because the contracting timeframe is
different for the two disciplines. The ideal situation is that early on in the project,
engineering and a fabrication representative are engaged simultaneously. Even
though projects tend to be more successful when that happens, fabrication is
not always able to join projects in the early phases.
One of the most significant barriers facing the company is the contracting strategy.
The contract for engineering is separate from the fabrication contract – separate
not only in terms of documentation, but also in timeframes. This is the leading
cause of misalignment between engineering and fabrication.
Before the fabrication bid, engineering designs for more than one situation
depending on the discipline, considering that fabrication cannot be part of the
project to establish the construction sequence. This is an attempt to predict the
possible execution methods. For example, when designing floating structures
on the top sides, one way is to design for a jacking system and another is to
design for the contractor to lift the modules. In this situation, the company would
develop two different designs. Even though there is an extra cost, the company
chooses to keep the options open for the fabrication bidding. For other disciplines
(say, piping and electrical), Company C is more flexible on how the contractor
approaches the design phase.
94
Construction representative participation during the engineering phase

Ensuring construction input in the early phases of engineering is vital for a
successful project. When the fabricator is not available to provide input during the
engineering phase, Company C relies on internal expertise to obtain the needed
information. Engineering representatives are also part of the construction team
to ensure the link between fabrication and engineering. Having designers on site
to manage the interface with the design contractors helps get issues efficiently
resolved.
Lack of quality control and quality assurance

Usually, the owner is focused on quality assurance, but quality control has regularly
appeared as an issue. Despite quality control being one of the contractor’s
responsibilities, Company C ends up taking on more of it than expected.
Expert Interview D

Expert D is a senior technical consultant at Company D. Typically, Company D is the
owner of inshore and offshore oil and gas projects. Company D has been implementing
AWP in projects and sometimes requires contractors to do so as well. The use of AWP
is a management decision and thus not mandatory.
As a senior technical consultant, Expert D is responsible for management issues

that arise during design engineering, covering a broad spectrum of global projects.
One of the activities conducted by the technical consultant is referred to as a “therapy
section,” during which the expert communicates with the engineering team to understand
the main issues and then helps the team overcome those issues.

Expert D asserts that it is too early to determine the impact of AWP in engineering
processes. The expert mentioned that to precisely state AWP’s impact, it would be
necessary to analyze metrics related to engineering performance. As a technical
consultant, Expert D does not analyze this type of information, so no conclusions can
be drawn in that aspect. The expert declared that Company D has a clear understanding
that AWP, when properly implemented, has a positive impact on the overall project.
95
Barrier and potential solutions
Engineering contractor does not have a clear vision of AWP expectations and
goals to properly define the work sequence
To properly define what the engineering deliverables are and when they should
be issued to the construction team, engineering needs to visualize the project’s
goals and expectations. To be able to align their work with the construction
expectations, engineers should understand the end goal of the project. This is
not, though, always the case. Often, early on in the project, engineering has no
clear vision of AWP expectations. That compromises the AWP implementation
and engineering deliverables alignment.
Another factor that blurs the engineering vision on the AWP expectations are
changes made by construction. Engineering defines the WBS very early in the
project and uses it to sequence and plan its work. If there are major changes to
construction WBS, engineering work sequence no longer supports the construction
sequence.
It is essential for construction to join the project during FEED, to support engineering
on a detailed level. Examples of information that should account with construction
participation include:
– Defining the numbering system
– Developing the WBS
– Defining the model attributes
– Ensuring that the construction sequence is well-defined and clear.
By getting construction involved early on, constraints could be pointed out and
communicated to all stakeholders, which already significantly decreases the
impact of issues and unexpected problems.
Engineering must be able to effectively code every item to the appropriate

construction work area, tag it to the CWP, define model attributes, and deliver
packages according to the construction sequence. In this way, the status can
easily be tracked against construction’s requirements. All of these steps should
be addressed during the early phases of the project.
96
Expert Interview E

Expert E is the AWP advisor in Company E, which usually takes an ownership
role in oil and gas projects. The company actively implements AWP in its projects and
strongly believes that AWP has a positive impact on its projects’ performance. Being
the AWP advisor, Expert E oversees a portfolio of projects that are implementing AWP
and offers support accordingly. Expert E mostly supports EPC projects, but also has
experience with EP and C projects.

Expert E recognizes that AWP has a positive impact on the project. However, it
is a challenge to implement AWP “by the book” on projects that adopt a fast-track
schedule approach. In a fast-track project, engineers do not have enough time to
achieve a 100% complete IFC package and move to the next step. Therefore, Expert E
sees that companies occasionally choose to take a productivity loss to be able to set
a more aggressive schedule.
Expert E believes that, once Company E has adopted efficient AWP practices,
AWP will bring the benefits identified in literature by RT-272 and RT-319.

• Lack of overall AWP education within engineering organization
• Resistance to change
• Lack of guidance on how to properly develop an engineering schedule
• Integration between AWP and contract type
• Defining the path of construction
• Selecting proper tool development schedule
Lack of overall AWP education within engineering organization

Engineering companies are not familiar with AWP processes and concepts. It
follows that engineers do have a clear understanding of the expectations and
goals of AWP implementation.
97
Resistance to change
Engineering teams are occasionally unwilling to change their traditional approaches
in order to make progress in their engineering activities. Changing existing processes
can be a challenge. Therefore, instead of changing the processes companies
have in place so as to support AWP, some companies only include aspects of
AWP in the existing processes. That does mask the companies’ processes, but
it is not enough to obtain the expected results from the implementation.
One tangible example of this situation may occur during the engineering schedule
development, specifically when using a traditional scheduling software. The level 3
schedule should be developed by EWPs and CWPs, but some companies develop
the schedule based on the traditional deliverables and tag the activity to an EWP
and CWP. The tagging process can be done externally, using a spreadsheet.
Even though engineering deliverables are mapped to an EWP, according to AWP
principles, this is not the proper way to develop the schedule. Not creating the
schedule based on EWP can have a negative influence during the construction
phase, making it difficult to measure and track engineering performance and
impact on the project.
Lack of guidance on how to properly develop an engineering schedule

Managing a complex project can be a challenge once the schedule has not been
properly developed. One of the issues faced by engineering is the intricacies of the
methods to develop a schedule based on AWP principles. Once the engineering
team starts to develop the schedule, some practical questions may arise. For
example, “How do you build a schedule based on EWPs into traditional schedule
software?” “How do you define the WBS elements?” There are many details that
may appear as a challenge when developing the schedule, and some companies
lack guidance on how to overcome them.
This situation is illustrated by one real project. The engineering team was
struggling to develop the schedule using Primavera P6. The team decided to
use the defined-fields function to tag the activities to packages. However, one
activity supported three EWPs, but the defined field only allowed the activity to
be tagged to one EWP. Once the team entered that phase of the project, the
solutions to that issue could have required extensive rework and it would have
been very disruptive to move backwards in the process to figure out the right
way of developing the schedule.
This issue can be misperceived as a push-back from engineering, but that

is not the case. Developing a schedule based on AWP deliverables is not a
straightforward process.
98
Integration between AWP and contract type

Implementing AWP on cost-reimbursable contracts provides more opportunities
for owner engagement in the project. In this way, an experienced owner is given
more opportunities to drive AWP implementation. On lump-sum projects, in which
the owner is not as “hands on” as in a cost-reimbursable contract, it is crucial
that the owner clearly define the AWP expectations and standards to be followed
throughout the project.
The same relationship between AWP and contract type serves the contractor
and subcontractor. In a cost-reimbursable contract, the general contractor has
more freedom to interfere in the processes, but in a lump-sum contract, the
subcontractor is more independent to dive into its own AWP implementation.
Defining the path of construction

The path of construction should be developed during the early phases of a
project, so engineering will be able to align its deliverables with the construction
sequence. Aligning the path of construction can be a challenge due to project
complexity and different construction and engineering engagement timeframes.
It is essential that all stakeholders are aware and fully comprehend the path
of construction. A graphical representation of the path of solution may be a
good solution to ensure a practical and efficient understanding of the path of
construction. One suggested method was to use the plot plan to delineate the
CWAs. After that, the CWAs are broken down into CWPs. The CWPs can be
graphically presented to the stakeholder in a chronological order, highlighting the
construction sequence. This simple method may help engineering understand
the path of construction and define the deliverables properly.
Selecting proper tool development schedule

AWP requires that the engineering schedule be developed according to AWP
deliverables and that it should support the path of construction. Therefore, it is
essential to adopt a tool that meets the AWP requirements. Examples of these
requirements are properly mapping deliverables to EWPs and CWPs and linking
activities to the path of construction. Selecting the proper tool at the beginning
of the project can avoid severe challenges in the future. For example, once
engineering realizes that a P6 schedule is not enough to properly address all
the AWP requirements, the team will have to look for other possible solutions to
this issue and the effort to solve it may harshly impact engineering performance.
99
Expert Interview F

Expert F is a cost, schedule, and controls manager at an oil and gas company that
usually takes the owner role in projects. Company F has experience with AWP and
has a program structure to support AWP implementation at the corporate and project
levels. Because Company F is an owner that has experience with AWP, Expert F
makes it clear that the company is willing to drive AWP implementation and support
stakeholders that are familiar with AWP.

Expert F believes that when all project phases have been analyzed, AWP is shown
to have a positive impact. Nonetheless, when looking specifically at engineering, the
cost may be higher and productivity may be lower when compared to a traditional
engineering project. Expert F does not see that as a problem given that, during the
construction phase, proper AWP implementation by engineering will generate a positive
impact on the cost and productivity.
Barrier and potential solutions
Defining proper upfront resources allocation

Some companies may perceive the need to add more people to implement
AWP in engineering, though that is not necessarily the case. There are different
approaches to how resource allocation is defined, and each approach has its
own advantages and disadvantages:
– A company may choose to have a full-time AWP champion. Sometimes when
the project has a full-time AWP champion throughout the whole project, the
discipline leads offload their AWP responsibilities to the AWP champion –
not an ideal situation.
– The company may elect not to have a dedicated AWP individual for a project.
– A third approach lies between the previous two. It consists in having a full-
time AWP champion during the initial phases of the project, but later in the
project assigning responsibilities related to AWP to other individuals and
letting the full-time AWP champion serve as a support to the project. In this
third approach, the AWP champion should educate and train staff to make
them able to fulfill their AWP duties.
As an owner, Company F does not mandate a specific resource set-up, although

the contract clearly states all of the AWP expectations. It is up to the engineering
contractor to define the resources to achieve the expected goals.
100
Expert Interview G

Expert G is a business process and continuous improvement manager at
Company G, which provides engineering, fabrication, construction, and repair
of aboveground storage tanks and specialty vessels. Company G also performs
turnarounds, industrial cleaning, pre-commissioning, plant services, and capital
projects. Company G is still in the infancy stage of implementing AWP and just started
with the AWP steering committee. Instead of fully implementing AWP, the company
is picking a few system components of AWP and working actively on them as a trial.

According to Expert G, the impact of AWP on engineering processes is dependent
on finding the applicability of the AWP implementation. Since every company is
organized differently and does different kinds of work, each has a different degree of
difficulty when it tries to implement AWP. Therefore, Expert G finds great value in the
scalability of AWP, which means that a company can take the underlying fundamentals
from some of the other practices and try to figure out how to extract value. By doing
this, companies will be able to generate positive impact in the engineering processes
from AWP implementation.

• Difficulty in making AWP fit-for-purpose on various sizes of projects
• Lack of AWP champion or leadership
• Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP
• Cost to implement
• Company structure is not organized in an efficient way – bad communication
among stakeholders
Difficulty in making AWP fit-for-purpose on various sizes of projects

AWP seems to be suitable for megaprojects, and it is easy to see how taking the
principles and the processes of AWP will be beneficial for such large and complex
projects; however, many other projects are in a unique position. Company G’s EPC
work is building terminals and storage facilities for crude industry. Since every
company is organized differently and does different kinds of work, it is difficult to
make AWP fit projects of different purposes and sizes.
101
Expert G observed that AWP will be refined further when Company G has found
the applicability of its implementation. Since the company is still in the beginning
phase of implementing AWP, it is trying to figure out which components of AWP
are scalable. The focus has been on which principles and components of AWP
would work great on a project as a trial. Company G might not be in a position
to fully implement AWP and purchase AWP software, but it is trying to do some
component packaging and construction-driven engineering. The goal is to start
small, make it fit the purpose, try to do something achievable, and move forward
to get some value out of AWP.
Lack of AWP champion or leadership

Someone has to take on the role of AWP champion, and that is what Expert G
did. Expert G brings together people who have a solid understanding of what
AWP is. Expert G is trying to implement AWP on a pilot stage, taking some baby
steps and determining whether AWP is achievable for Company G. The goal is
to get in the door of AWP and make wider use of it in the future.
Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP

As it traveled the road of AWP, Company G discovered its great lack of AWP
resources. This can be a huge barrier for companies that are at a low maturity
level and in the beginning steps of implementing AWP. Company G identified
some system issues where it was lacking AWP resources:
– Have a full-blown EMS system.
– Have an enterprise document.
– Have a solid general maintenance system for AWP.
The company is trying to use what it has for now and work around these obstacles.
There could be some lessons learned while it does this, and Expert G can present
the results to executives to get Company G further along with AWP.
Cost to implement
In the beginning phases, when Company G was trying to get people on board with
AWP implementation, one barrier was the perceived initial cost. The company is
struggling with fundamental things that need to be taken care of internally, and
it is trying all kinds of things to improve project execution.
Instead of fully implementing AWP, which could add cost and burden, Company G
is beginning with simple steps, such as bringing on board an AWP champion. As
the champion drives AWP implementation, establishes procedures and policy,
figures out a structure for the projects, and estimates the costs, Company G will
try to figure out whether it is ready to buy in and use everything AWP has.
102
Company structure is not organized in an efficient way – bad communication

among stakeholders
Many limitations to implementing AWP are due to company structure – it is not
organized in the most effective and efficient way. Company G is under a parent
company and has two sister companies. Company G takes care of the non-union
work while one of the sister companies does union work and the other one is an
engineering group. Thus, Company G does not have engineers under its own
umbrella and, unfortunately, it almost operates as if it were third-party engineering.
The engineers are geographically separated, which can lead to communication
problems, and Company G does not enjoy the energy and efficiencies that an
in-house engineering group would afford.
Expert Interview H

Expert H is a project manager at Company H, which provides professional project
and asset services in the energy, chemicals, and resources sector. Expert H has
had a few experiences working with AWP and believes that every time Company H
has worked on an AWP project, it got better at it and could tweak things to improve.
Company H is currently forming a consortium with a construction company and taking
care of the engineering and procurement of each project.

Expert H believes that AWP offers huge amounts of benefits, from schedule
predictability to safety predictability. According to Expert H, for a project to be efficient,
it is crucial to have the engineering complete and the materials procured on site
when the constructors need them, and AWP fits right into that role. Also, based on
Expert H’s experience, developing engineering work packages is a schedule-driven
job. By adopting AWP, Company H has been able to get the product to the market as
fast as possible, and the owner could find a little niche in the market and save millions
of dollars. Moreover, with AWP there has been better predictability whether cost is
trending up or down, which is likely to reassure clients.
103

• Owner engages contractors too late to implement AWP effectively
• Lack of ongoing alignment between owner, contractors, suppliers, and others
• Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and contract type
• AWP program is not owner-driven
• Internal push-back from procurement (purchasing)
Owner engages contractors too late to implement AWP effectively

One of the biggest challenges has been to set up AWP early enough so that all
the construction work areas are predefined and the engineering work packages
that go with those work areas are ready as early as possible. The earlier the owner
starts implementing AWP, the more it can align all of the different engineering
disciplines along with the procurement contractor and get the estimating group
on board early to estimate the project with the work packages in mind.
A lot of engineering companies do not necessarily partner with a construction

company early on, but it is an effective way to get engineering involved early to
tell how the project is going to be built. By doing this, the construction company
can figure out how the work areas should be divided, and which ones come
in first. Expert H noted that this is the real key to setting up a successful AWP
program. The engineering work packages can be thought of as dominoes being
lined up in sequence. This approach allows one to prioritize the work not only for
engineering, but also through procurement, and it can determine how materials
are delivered to the field. By doing this, when the construction is ready to begin,
all engineering packages are ready and all materials are on site.
Lack of ongoing alignment between owner, contractors, suppliers, and others

In cases where the engineering for a project is already mostly complete when the
construction company finally gets on board, it is likely that the construction company
will want to change everything. The constructors want to build it differently than
how the engineering firm designed it. At this point, alignment is lost and AWP
faces challenges. In order to avoid this problem, engineering should partner with
construction early, so they can reach an agreement on how the project is going
to be built and in what sequence. It is important that they never change those
decisions for the project to proceed as planned.
104
Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and contract type

Different types of contracts can have different impacts on AWP implementation.
Expert H claimed that a reimbursable subcontract has a huge advantage over
a lump-sum contract. A reimbursable contract allows the owner to control the
cost with a reimbursable in very defined, small installation work packages, which
leads to a better job. With a lump-sum contract, however, it is possible that the
contractor can go a bit rogue and not stick to the plan, just to save as much
money as possible.
AWP program is not owner-driven

Expert H shared experiences that contrasted when the AWP program was owner-
driven and when it was not. An owner that was very engaged in implementing AWP
would review how the project was going to be executed, make suggestions, and
provide tools for tracking. That owner would like to see how AWP was implemented
and progressing. Although the owner did not make every decision in AWP, it was
easier for the engineering and procurement team to explain how the project was
going because the owner had been involved in the process from early on.
On the other hand, some clients had neither an interest nor a clue how to do
AWP. In these cases, Expert H, having more experience with AWP, would make a
decision and just inform the owner. Since the owner did not have any knowledge
about AWP and was not involved in the process, it would simply rely on Expert H
and Company H’s decisions.
Expert H believes CII’s efforts to hold symposiums and workshops about AWP
will help owners better understand what AWP is and help them realize that it is
necessary for any project to be carried out efficiently.
Internal push-back from procurement (purchasing)

According to Expert H, engineering can run into conflicts with the purchasing
team as the engineers implement AWP. The purchasing team may struggle with
how to work out its process, since purchasing finds it more cost efficient to buy
construction materials in large portions. Usually, AWP gives engineering work
packages early for certain construction work areas in which not all materials are
needed, but it is likely that the data sheet and purchase packages for other work
areas will not be ready yet. The work packages have to be completed in a certain
sequence. It’s better to buy the materials for the first part of the work packages
that the team is working on, and come back later to buy the second, third, and
so on. Therefore, it is important that the purchasing team understand that they
may have to do releases on a per initial purchase order.
105
Expert Interview I

Expert I is the head of front end engineering and design (FEED) at Company I,
a healthcare company. Company I is changing its delivery method for major capital
projects. For the past 10 years or so, Company I has closely followed an EPCM model
for its projects. It is now moving toward a more integrated project delivery system that
is similar to AWP.
Unlike other companies, Company I finishes its FEED process at the end of the
concept stage and hands over the project to regional project directors. Therefore,
Expert I does not get involved in the detailed design moving through to delivery. Up
until last year, however, Expert I had experienced that part of the process while working
as a regional project director. During the FEED process, the expert tried to understand
what the project might look like at a high level, what business benefits it would deliver,
and how the company was going to deliver it.

According to Expert I, during the feasibility stages the company would go through
high-level planning: what the project might look like, what kind of business benefits it
could bring, and how the company would deliver it. During this planning process, the
project would engage the different stakeholders (e.g., engineering design companies,
project manager, construction manager) and set up one team for integrated project
delivery. Company I believed that when the stakeholders were not on the same team,
since they were focused on their different trades, it was possible that a stakeholder
would pass over jobs that seemed irrelevant because that stakeholder did not own
them. By contrast, when the company created an integrated project team, its members
would share risks and share ownership, which accelerated the project.

• Procurement personnel not available to provide timely input to the path of
construction
• Lack of alignment between AWP and planning
• External push-back from construction contractor
106

One of the main barriers that Expert I mentioned was the lack of alignment
between owner, contractors, and suppliers. It is crucial that the stakeholders
get on board in the integrated project delivery setting, so they can start working
together from early on and accelerate the project. To have good alignment among
the stakeholders, it is important to get people on board who are at the senior
executive level. In this way, every step of the delivery method will be understood
and start from the head of engineering, head of construction, and so on.
Procurement personnel not available to provide timely input to the path of

construction
A lot of procurement organizations within Company I’s industry try to save costs
and get the cheapest price for the owner. However, most procurement companies’
costs are similar, so what matters is the consistent delivery and timely input for
the path of construction. Expert I emphasized that procurement personnel should
be able to provide steady and regular input for construction in order to have the
project proceed without stumbling.
Lack of alignment between AWP and planning

For AWP implementation to succeed, effective and comprehensive planning
must be done from the beginning. Planning the activities for the project can
be difficult, but this process can be made easier with a planning facilitator. A
planning facilitator is someone who understands the project inside out, including
the workplace and each step of the project. The facilitator should be able to work
with different delivery companies and make sure that the project does not get
delayed. Having someone with this significant role can accelerate the alignment
between AWP and planning.
External push-back from construction contractor

Having contractors who are familiar with AWP and willing to collaborate is a huge
part of AWP success. Depending on the location of the project, there can be
situations where contractors have never heard of the AWP method. Since the
capability of the contractors is crucial to the project, the owner should prepare for
such conditions by understanding the marketplace and the contractors beforehand.
The owner should look into not only the contractors’ capabilities for design and
installation, but also their ability to work together in a collaborative way from a
cultural point of view.
107
Expert Interview J

Company J is an EPC contractor that operates through various types of global
businesses, such as infrastructure, nuclear, oil and gas, and chemicals. Expert J is an
engineering manager within the company who has over 16 years of project engineering
experience. Company J has developed its own construction expertise and relies on
that internal expertise to start the engineering process.

Projects are in a better overall position when they implement AWP. Company J
understands this fact and tries to integrate construction in the early planning of its work.
The company has construction-experienced resources sitting on its execution teams
at the beginning of its jobs, so it can pull them in, ask them questions, and have them
look over the execution plans. In this way, it is clearer to the team what it is driving
toward, which leads to better productivity, quality performance, and safety performance
during the construction phase.
Expert J believes that AWP is scalable and any type of contract is suitable for AWP.
What matters more is that the deliverables (e.g., EWP, CWP) should be clearly integrated
with the contract. Expert J thinks that the key for successful AWP implementation is
that the contract language has to be written to facilitate the use of AWP.

• Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes
• Internal pushback from engineering and procurement

One of the biggest challenges can be aligning owner, contractors, and suppliers
as the project begins and proceeds. A project can never rely on one person;
it takes a team of people who have done multiple types of work. To foster that
alignment, it is important to have those experts available up front. No matter
what size a project is or what form of contract it uses, it needs people with the
right experience to provide input. The project should have those people available
to provide the key inputs, and the owner should recognize that having those
resources up front is a value worth paying for.
108
Also, it can always be a challenge to maintain communication between the owner,

engineering, and construction. When communication is poor, that can lead to
misalignment. Expert J mentions that it is important to choose the right contractual
language so that the teams are motivated in the same direction.

Although the vast majority of subcontractors are familiar with the terminology of
AWP, some of the definitions are not clear to everybody. Expert J sees that there
is still some work to be done here to get the message out and to get the definitions
and requirements more clearly defined across the engineering, construction, and
procurement industries. There has been a lot of theoretical information about the
benefits of AWP, but more hard data and case studies could be used to promote
AWP.
Internal pushback from engineering and procurement

Engineers and suppliers in projects do not necessarily refuse to implement AWP.
However, they often are asked to implement AWP after they have signed their
contracts. This means they already could have allocated their schedules and
budgets for a project without AWP. For example, in the engineering industry,
people still rely on paper products to be the deliverable for the project. However,
when the owner wants to implement AWP, that certainly requires that larger,
more complicated model data has to be exchanged. Much of the work for the
engineers can be just changing the type of deliverable and ensuring that data
in the model are accurate. Therefore, it is important to involve engineering and
procurement as early as possible, so they will not have to change the inputs they
have prepared for the project.
Expert Interview K

Company K is a global specialty materials company and Expert K represents the
company in construction projects. For the front end engineering of the project, Company K
relies heavily on its internal process engineering group and has that group incorporate
at least a minimum of the AWP standards that CII has developed. Starting from there,
the company gets into talking about defining the construction work areas, building the
work breakdown structure, and down to having the construction work packages flow
through project controls to the engineering process.
109

According to Expert K, whether the AWP implementation will be successful and have
a positive impact on engineering processes depends a lot on the contract strategy. The
cases can be very different when Company K is going with EPC versus when it is going
to bid out construction separately. With an EPC contract, the company would expect
the contractors to use AWP but let them choose what they want to implement, up to
a certain extent. However, if EP and C are separate, the company is more likely to be
prescriptive about which items it expects to see when the deliverables are turned over.
In both cases, the contract strategy determines who has the burden of making
sure that AWP implementation is happening. In an EPC contract, it can be efficient to
give that one contractor an incentive to implement AWP all the way through; whereas,
when EP and C are separate, there is no incentive for engineering and procurement to
implement AWP, especially if it is a fixed-bid contract. The owner has to be in charge
of having engineering and procurement add the AWP attributes through contract
requirements, even if this might incur extra costs.

• Internal push-back from design engineers
• Contractor does not buy in early enough
Internal push-back from design engineers

Company K has particularly been observing this barrier with internal design
engineering. The detailed design group questions what implementing AWP would
save in cost, time, and productivity. The owner would have to explain that the
cost could go up 10% initially, but the team would eventually save 10% during
construction, and AWP would significantly benefit the whole project. Having the
design engineers understand this and getting them on board is an important
change management process from the owner’s side.
To solve this problem, Company K’s AWP team has done a lot of training with
its onsite team and engineering teams. Since the design engineers are not the
ones who see the direct benefit from implementing AWP, they often doubt the
gains that are made in the construction process. Therefore, it is important to give
them the overall picture and case studies of successful AWP implementations
so they can understand the true benefits of AWP.
110
Contractor does not buy in early enough

One of the biggest hurdles, particularly with engineering and pulling everything
together, is to get the contractor on board early. Early engagement of the contractor
gives them proper time to develop better construction, which leads to the overall
benefits of AWP.
Having the contractor on board early can be more challenging when EP and C
are separate. In this case, Company K brings in a constructability expert to
define the path of construction. When the company goes out for a bid with
contractors, it submits the request for proposal and asks the contractors about
their constructability experience. Company K expects a contractor to have a
detailed path to construction and to agree to follow the path that is laid out by
the constructability expert and the EP company.
Expert Interview L

Company L is a full-service engineering, procurement, construction management,
and technical services firm working on a wide range of projects from plant-level small
projects to larger capital projects. Expert L has worked on a few EPC projects as a
project director. The company is currently working with a software solutions company
to implement an AWP program. Company L uses software for procurement and project
controls, but its ultimate goal is to have all infrastructure in place for the software to
support a path to construction as well.

Expert L understands that, in order to work on larger projects, a lot of owners are
demanding AWP solutions. However, Company L has little exposure to AWP, leaving
much of its personnel unfamiliar with it. One reason for this is because Company L
has been executing smaller projects (in the $5 to $10 million range), and it does not
require breakdowns by work.
As the company moves on to work on mid-sized or large projects, where AWP can
be a bigger factor, it is starting to have discussions with clients about implementing
AWP from an early phase. Moreover, as the engineering model needs to add more
components and becomes more detailed, Company L has realized how important IT
becomes. Therefore, Company L is working with the software company to develop a
model for implementing AWP and integrating it with other systems, such as procurement
and project controls.
111

• Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes
• AWP path for engineering not defined

One of the challenges Company L is facing is that a lot of its people on a project
are not very familiar with AWP. Expert L estimates that if the company’s project
managers were asked to define AWP and explain what workface planning entails,
probably only 40% to 50% would be able to do so. To overcome this issue, a
company should train its employees to give them a basic understanding of AWP
and how it is implemented. Having the employees attend AWP workshops, as
Company L did, can help them understand AWP methodology, too.
AWP path for engineering not defined

Because Company L is in its beginning phases of AWP implementation, its
engineering team is facing problems on how to define the path of construction.
The path of construction should be defined during the initial phases of planning
and the engineering should proceed accordingly, but the engineering team does
not have an optimized way of doing this yet. To resolve this issue, the owner may
have to drive these initial steps to make sure the engineering team knows what
it is doing. The owner should make sure that everyone is on board, construction
input is being made at the right time, and the engineering team fully grasps the
AWP process.
112
Notes
113
Research Team 365,
Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging – Phase 2
Rob Bailey, Day & Zimmermann
Santiago Barrera Ramirez, Worley
* Carlos Caldas, The University of Texas at Austin
* In Bae Chung, The University of Texas at Austin
Kim Crovetto, Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Kirt Currie, LyondellBasell
Daniel De Marco, thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (USA), Inc.
* Kasey Faust, The University of Texas at Austin
Jamie Gerbrecht, ExxonMobil Corporation
Kirk Harris, Black & Veatch
Mike King, Black & Veatch
Mark Lambert, Eastman Chemical Company, Vice Chair
Silvana Lara, Fluor Corporation
Chuck Mies, Autodesk, Inc.
Robin Mikaelsson, Construct-X, LLC, Chair
Neil Nunez, Bechtel Group, Inc.
Tony Oda, Jacobs
Jason Owens, Motiva Enterprises, LLC
Todd Pfennig, APTIM
Levi Quelland, Albemarle Corporation
* Neuton Rebeiro Neto, The University of Texas at Austin
* Principal authors
Editor: Michael E. Burns

3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316
FR-365

CII Promoting The Use AWP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CII Promoting The Use AWP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CII Promoting The Use AWP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Promoting the Use of

Advanced Work Packaging

Final Report DCC-04

Owners Contractors Service Providers

Research Team DCC-04, Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging

Construction Industry Institute

Final Report DCC-04

The University of Texas at Austin

Printed in the United States of America.

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) challenged Research Team DCC-04

The research team developed an online survey to gain a better understanding of

RT-DCC-04’s research findings indicate that AWP is being utilized globally by

RT-DCC-04 also conducted a comprehensive analysis of AWP implementation

RT-319 validated the benefits of implementing AWP. It used qualitative and

• AWP Maturity Model

• AWP Implementation Plans and Maturity Levels

Figure 1. Research Methodology

1. Company and respondent information

3. Barriers and potential solutions

Table 1. AWP Implementation Barriers

1. Lack of buy-in 28. Inconsistency in AWP 53. Transition from construction by

4. Recommendations and opportunities for improvement

The survey received 68 responses from 36 different companies. These responses

Figure 2. Respondents’ Companies Categorized by Role on Projects (n=36)

Figure 3. Respondents’ Years of Experience

The interview was designed to most efficiently elucidate relevant information

By conducting these interviews, team members expected to understand the industry’s

The team conducted 11 interviews with experts from 10 different companies:

Appendix K summarizes these interviews without naming each company.

The interview findings gave the researchers a deeper understanding of the

RT-DCC-04’s background review facilitated its development of the subsequent

AWP Maturity Model

Advanced Work Packaging Implementation Maturity Model

Level 1: AWP Early Stages Level 3: AWP Business Transformation

driven by customer demands. developed and updated. These often seek to

Most work occurs inside functional units with

minimal collaboration or integration. "Over the

wall" approaches are common. The culture

Figure 4. Maturity Model Matrix by RT-272 (CII/COAA 2013a)

RT-319 calculated project performance by measuring the gap between estimated

a) Linear b) Square Root c) Exponential d) S-curve e) J-curve

Figure 5. Patterns between AWP Maturity and Project Performance

AWP Implementation Barriers

Barriers Identified by RT-272

Barriers Identified by RT-319

Preliminary List of Barrier Categories Brainstormed by RT-DCC-04

AWP Practices and Components

RT-272 Audit Tool by Phase

Workface Planning Scorecard

RT-272 Case Study Questionnaire

RT-272 AWP Project Definition Assessment Tool

RT-DCC-04 analyzed the AWP implementation plans and maturity-level ratings

AWP Implementation Plans

Figure 6. Where the Company Applies or Intends to Apply AWP

Applicable to projects with TIC> $1B 42

Applicable to projects with TIC< $100M 39

Figure 7. AWP’s Applicability to Projects of Various Sizes

AWP Implementation Maturity Levels

Table 3. How RT-DCC-04 Calculated a Company’s Maturity Score