Page 1

CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP INITIATIVE Consolidated Roadmap V1.1 11 January 2003


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

FOREWORD In October 2001, representatives from the capital projects industry met in San Antonio, Texas to develop a comprehensive technology research and development agenda. The goal: to identify critical technology needs that crosscut all sectors of the industry, and to identify requirements for focused R&D to meet those challenges. In November 2002, a second team of industry experts met in Lansdowne, Virginia to review the evolving document, address emerging Homeland Security issues, and define an initial slate of focused projects to implement the recommendations defined in the roadmap. This document presents the results of those workshops – a draft strategic plan, offered to the industry, government, and academic community, identifying technological and business goals that must be met to realize the industry’s vision for the future. This is a living plan that will evolve over the coming months as we bring industry, academic, and government partners together to refine and implement the plan. We encourage you to read it closely and thoughtfully, and provide us with the benefit of your individual expertise and views. It is important to note that in the context of this document, “capital projects” spans the entire life cycle of a capital facility – from requirements definition, project planning, and design, to procurement, construction, and operational handover, to facility operation, maintenance, and ultimate disposition at the end of its useful life. Certain aspects of the roadmap are focused on the “project” view of the life cycle; other aspects are focused on operations and maintenance perspectives. One compelling finding of the roadmapping effort is that both of these perspectives are deeply interrelated and interdependent. It is also important to note that the roadmap spans all manner of capital projects and capital facilities; the goal of the roadmapping team was to be broadly inclusive, ensuing that the needs, issues and concerns of all sectors of the industry are met in this document. The roadmap is organized for ease of review and assimilation • Section 1 – provides an overview of the process that generated this document, and the “Vision” model that is the centerpiece of the integrated plan. • Section 2 – provides a broad background of the state of the construction and facilities industry, including federal R&D investment and the detailed Current State Assessment generated at the San Antonio workshop • Section 3 – Provides and overview of current initiatives being led by industry organizations and government agencies • Section 4 – Presents a summary-level view of the vision of the future defined by the roadmap • Section 5 – Presents detailed technological and business goals and requirements that support the defined vision • Section 6 – Addresses issues associated with Homeland Security, and industry priorities. • Section 7 – Presents the initial slate of project plans, created by the Lansdowne workshop team, to begin developing the capabilities required to achieve the vision. If you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations on this draft document, please direct them to the project team in care of Doug Marks at dmarks1@cfl.rr.com. If you would like more information about FIATECH, please visit our web site at www.fiatech.org or call us at (512) 232-9600.

January 2003

2


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Genesis and Evolution of the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap and Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Development of the Capital Projects Vision Model ......................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Challenges and Priorities of Implementation .................................................................................... 1-5 2.0 THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Federal R&D Investments ................................................................................................................ 2-8 2.2 Challenges & Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 2-9 2.3 Current State Assessment............................................................................................................... 2-11 3.0 ONGOING INITIATIVES ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 4.0 FUTURE STATE VISION FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECTS/FACILITIES INDUSTRY................................. 4-1 4.1 The Future State Vision.................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Key Crosscutting Themes ................................................................................................................ 4-5 5.0 GOALS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECTS/FACILITIES INDUSTRY ...................... 5-1 5.1 Project Planning & Management ..................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Project/Facility Design ................................................................................................................... 5-14 5.3 Procurement & Construction Operations....................................................................................... 5-19 5.4 Facility Operation & Maintenance................................................................................................. 5-29 6.0 IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS OF HOMELAND SECURITY ................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Homeland Security Issues and Ongoing Initiatives......................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Virginia Workshop Findings and Recommendations...................................................................... 6-6 7.0 PROJECT PLANS ....................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Project 1: Master Facility Life-Cycle Model for Project Planning and Management........................... 7-2 Project 2: Construction Industry Data/Information/Knowledge Repository ....................................... 7-11 Project 3: Automated Capital Projects Design Environment ............................................................... 7-11 Project 4: Integrated Procurement & Supply Network......................................................................... 7-23 Project 5: New Materials, Methods, & Products Development and Implementation ......................... 7-29 Project 6: Intelligent Job Site ................................................................................................................ 7-33 Project 7: Intelligent Facility Life-Cycle Optimization........................................................................ 7-41

January 2003

3


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE APPENDICES Appendix A – “What If?” ............................................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B – ASCE Report Card and Policy Recommendations ................................................................ A-3 Appendix C – Federal Investments in New Construction and Building, FY1999........................................ A-7 Appendix D – The PISTEP Process Plant Engineering Activity Model..................................................... A-11 Appendix E – Acronyms & Abbreviations. ................................................................................................. A-13 Appendix F – Source Material and Suggested Reading. ............................................................................. A-16 Appendix G – Capital Projects Model – Functional Element Definitions .................................................. A-20 Appendix H – Workshop 1 Action Imperatives........................................................................................... A-24

January 2003

4


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS • Mike Alianza, Intel Corp. • Julio Arocho, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Sherif Barakat, National Research Council of Canada • Dwight Beranek, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Harvey Bernstein, CERF/IIEC • Scott Birth, Mead Westavo Corporation • Ted Blackmon, Reality Capture Technologies, Inc. • Doug Brassard, McDonough Bolyard Peck • Stephen A. Cauffman, NIST • Mark Browning, JP Step Holding Co. • Constantine A. Ciesielski, East Carolina University • Erin Cassidy, Industry Canada • Albeniz Crespo, SAP Labs • James Dempsey, U.S. Coast Guard • Gary Drury, PMI • Benedict Eazzetta, Intergraph PBS • Pena-Mora Feniosky, MIT • Benson Fergus, CH2M Hill • Michael J. Fladmark, Time Industrial, Inc. • Hunter Fulghum, Turner Aviation Security • Cita Furlani, NIST/ATP • Reginald Gagliardo, Burns and Roe • Stephen Garnier, Fairfax County Govt. • James Garrett, Carnegie-Mellon University • Richard Geissler, IAI • Karl Georgi, Bechtel Systems • Michael Hayes, CH2M Hill • Miriam Heller, National Science Foundation • Patrick Holcomb, Intergraph PBS • William Iler, Bentley • Ric Jackson, FIATECH • Jim Johnson, Bentley • Barney W. Jones, Fluor Corp. • Stephen A. Jones, Primavera Systems • Jeffrey M. Kauffman, University of Texas • Timothy S. Killen, Bechtel Corp. • James B. Klein, CADCENTRE Inc.

January 2003

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

5

Ed Koch, Bechtel Systems Paul Lower, Shell Chemical Co. Hal Macomber, Lean Construction Institute Gerhard Meinecke, Impress Software Chris Michaelis, Intel Corp. Moody Miles, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Thomas S. Murphy, Bayer Corporation Chris Norris, National Research Council of Canada William O'Brien, Univ. of Florida Kenneth Olmsted, Smithsonian Institution John Osby, DuPont Mark Owens, BWXT Y-12 Mark Palmer, NIST Ronald Palmer, Palmer Security Consulting Judith W. Passwaters, DuPont Company Charles Poer, Zachry Construction Corp. Robert Prieto, Parsons Brinckerhoff Les Prudhomme, Construction Industry Institute Sylvia Rappenecker, Dow Chemical Co. Jonathan Rudick, Reality Capture Technologies, Inc. Mike Saines, Chevron Corp. Tom Sawyer, ENR Stan Schaefer, Zachry Construction Corp. Todd Shearer, Anteon Corporation James D. Slaughter, S&B Engineers & Constructors Ltd. Sarah Slaughter, MOCA Systems Chatt Smith, Jacobs Jack Snell, NIST Building & Fire Research Laboratory Lucio Soibelman, Univ. of Illinois Anthony Songer, Virginia Tech Martin Stenzig, Impress Software Larry Stephenson, U.S. Army Engineer Research Dev. Center Paul D. Taylor, CITGO Petroleum Corp. Jorge Vanegas, Georgia Tech Univ. Ruth Wepfer, Dick Corporation


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • • • •

• • • •

Camille Villanova, U.S Dept. of Labor, OSHA John Voeller, Black & Veatch Richard Wallace, Zachry Construction Corp. Robert Wible, NCSBCS

Charles Wood, FIATECH Dennis M. Wolf, Conoco, Inc. Freddie P. Wong, ARAMCO H. Felix Wu, NIST

Project Staff • • • • • • • •

January 2003

• • • • • • • •

Gayle Brace, IMTI William Brosey, IMTI Dudley Caswell, IMTI David Dilts, IMTI Lynn Glover, IMTI Sara Jordan, IMTI Liz Landeros, FIATECH Donna Marks, IMTI

vi

Doug Marks, IMTI Mary Ann Merrell, IMTI Richard Neal, IMTI Barbara Newland, FIATECH Peter Osborne, IMTI Nicole Testa, FIATECH Kathy Thomas, IMTI Ray Walker, IMTI


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY In October 2001, a group of experts from the capital projects industry met in San Antonio, Texas to begin development of a comprehensive technology Research and Development (R&D) agenda for the industry. The result of that workshop was a first draft of the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap, published in January 2002. The roadmap is a tool in a larger process (Figure 1.1-1) aimed at bringing the industry together to accelerate progress in delivering technologies to pressing industry needs. The Capital Projects Technology Roadmap initiative is led by FIATECH, a, collaborative, non-profit R&D consortium serving the capital projects industry. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Construction Industry Institute (CII) created the FIATECH concept in 1999 as a breakthrough opportunity for the industry. FIATECH’s mission is to accelerate the deployment and implementation of advanced technologies to achieve significant cycle-time and life-cycle cost reductions and efficiencies in capital projects – from concept to design, construction, operation, and including decommissioning and dismantling. The idea of Fully Integrated and Automated Project Processes (FIAPP) is key to the formation and mission of FIATECH. The Roadmap Process The generation of the initial Capital Projects Technology Roadmap was a result of a structured process with strong industry participation. The process was designed to:

Figure 1.1-1. The Capital Projects Technology Initiative is a stepwise process to accelerate the delivery of solutions to meet industry’s pressing needs.

1. Document a “current state assessment” of the industry from technology and business perspectives 2. Develop a “future state vision” that addressed the needs identified in the current state assessment 3. Develop a broad slate of technology-oriented goals and requirements to achieve the vision 4. Prioritize the goals and identify an initial set of near-term actions to initiate progress towards those goals.

January 2003

1-1


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The roadmapping process used a hierarchical model of the basic functions of a capital project as a framework for working through topics in each stage of the process. This functional model, based on a study of current industry models such as the PI STEP model discussed in Appendix D, is the basis for the current-state assessments provided in Section 2.3. The functional model and a matrix of definitions for each of the model elements is provided in Appendix F. The roadmapping process, outlined graphically in Figure 1.1-2, builds from a broad foundation of an understanding of the current state of construction functions and captures the initial visions for a future state along with high-level goals and requirements to achieve these visions. This comprehensive view of the overall needs of a capital project establishes a credible base by which a prioritization and refinement can be developed towards an industry implementation plan. This convergence to strategy and tactical plans provides the basis for construction industry experts to focus on the development of an initial set of high-priority projects that are the first enablers for achieving the vision.

Figure 1.1-2. The roadmapping process builds methodically from a credible foundation to tactical plans for implementation.

1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS VISION MODEL In the early prioritization of the broad base of goals, the construction industry workshop team identified 11 specific Critical Capabilities for attaining the future-state vision: 1) Scenario-Based Capital Projects Planning 2) Automated Design System 3) Integrated, Automated Procurement & Supply Network 4) Real-Time Project Management/Coordination & Control 5) Life-Cycle Facility Model 6) Intelligent Job Site 7) New Construction Materials & Methods 8) Technology-Enabled Workforce 9) Knowledge Management 10) Integrated Data Environment 11) Self-Maintaining, Self-Repairing Systems. These Critical Capabilities led to the creation of the Capital Projects Vision model (Figure 1.2-1), providing a framework for continued evolution of the roadmap document and convergence on plans for the implementation phase of the roadmapping process.

January 2003

1-2


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Figure 1.2-1. The Capital Projects Vision model provides a high-level systems framework for development and implementation of needed technologies.

To seek comments for improvement and to gain buy-in, the first draft of the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap and the vision model were reviewed by the FIATECH membership and briefed at selected industry forums (DatatechPlant 2002, FIATECH Members Meeting, CERF, DBIA, CII Board of Advisors, AEC Systems, and others). These reviews served the dual purpose of educating the industry community on the roadmap initiative and refining the roadmap’s content and priorities to support planning for implementation. Through this process, the vision model matured to an accepted instrument for communicating the goal and the challenge. Subsequent iterations through the review process led to a validated model as a conceptual framework for an “integrated capital projects system” able to execute and manage a project from the inception of requirements, to design and construction, through operation of the facility or structure, and to disposition at the end of its useful life. The vision model is described in further detail in Section 4, which outlines key features of the major elements of the model. The vision model provides a high-level context for developing the critical high-impact technologies and systems that advance and integrate the various processes involved at each stage of the project/facility life cycle. The ultimate goal is the delivery of the right tools and systems to support the present and future needs of the capital projects industry. Much of the required technology will come from outside the industry, in particular from the Information Technology sector. The Capital Projects Technology Initiative provides a mechanism for the industry to reach consensus on technology needs and priorities, a forum for conveying requirements and priorities to the technology developer community, and a mandate to accelerate the delivery of needed components and integrated systems that better support the nation’s capital assets.

From Vision to Plans for Implementation The next step in the roadmapping process was the development of a planning framework to implement the vision. In November 2002, FIATECH convened more than 40 representatives from the industry, govern-

January 2003

1-3


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE ment, and academic communities in Lansdowne, Virginia to develop specific project plans for implementing R&D to achieve the goals defined in the roadmap. The objective of the workshop was to create a clearly defined “path forward” for launching of the industry-consensus R&D agenda, with cross-industry teams chartered to lead implementation of focused programs. The Virginia workshop also had a Figure 1.2-2. Jim Turner, (far right) Chief Minority Counsel for the House Science Committee, provides the Virginia workshop secondary agenda. Because the San participants with an overview of congressional perspectives on Antonio workshop occurred only enterprise integration and Homeland Security. weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, the new realities of Homeland Security were not addressed in the initial draft roadmap. Recognizing that these new realities must be addressed in any set of requirements for industry-wide technology planning, the Virginia workshop devoted specific attention to Homeland Security issues (Figure 1.2-2). These requirements are addressed in Section 6. The development of detailed plans for implementation was based on realizing the vision as defined in the vision model. The implementation strategy will address phased deliverables – early projects that have measurable impact now while contributing to the longer-term direction of achieving the vision state. The vision model was logically grouped into four Focus Areas (Figure 1.2-3) that span the major stages of the capital project/facility life cycle and provide the focus for teams of construction industry experts to develop project plans for implementation.

Figure 1.2-3. Each Focus Area team processed through a specific segment of the vision model.

January 2003

1-4


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The crosscutting topics of Workforce and Knowledge Management, included in the Vision model, were not singled out for individual attention, but rather were considered by each of the project teams in processing their respective areas. As the initial output from a comprehensive roadmapping process, seven projects were identified and developed into implementation plans to initiate the first steps toward organizing industry teams and developing specific actions to fund and execute the projects. The resulting draft project plans, presented in detail in Section 7, cover seven specific topics across the four Focus Areas: Focus Area 1 – Project Planning & Management Project 1: Master Facility Life-Cycle Model for Project Planning and Management Focus Area 2 – Project/Facility Design Project 2: Construction Industry Data/Information/Knowledge Repository Project 3: Automated Capital Projects Design Environment Focus Area 3 – Procurement & Construction Operations Project 4: Integrated Procurement & Supply Network Project 5: New Materials, Methods, & Products Development and Implementation Project 6: Intelligent Job Site Focus Area 4 – Facility Operation & Maintenance Project 7 - Intelligent Facility Life-Cycle Optimization.

1.3 CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES OF IMPLEMENTATION In considering the large slate of technical goals and requirements (and a number of business issues) defined in the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap, it is clear that the industry must focus its collective energy and resources on needs that are in its direct areas of influence: processes, systems, equipment, materials, and tools that specifically support capital project planning, construction, operation, and management across the life cycle. Many of the technological advances required to realize the vision, however, must come from outside the immediate industry community. These advances primarily include new systems, tools, and standards for acquiring, sharing, controlling, and managing data, information, and knowledge. New advances are coming forth in these areas on an almost daily basis from the information technology sector in the form of improved computer-aided design tools, modeling and simulation applications, automated project planning systems, enterprise resource management systems, and communications tools. The capital projects/facilities industry must leverage its collective market presence to expressly drive the evolution of these advances to more directly support the priority needs of the industry. The industry must define and prioritize specifically what it needs from other sectors, in terms of product functionality and features, then articulate those needs to the vendor communities – CAD vendors, ERP/ERM vendors, heavy equipment manufacturers, etc. Collectively, the construction/capital facilities industry has few equals in buying power. That power can and should be far better focused to attack the industry’s pressing needs and support its long-term visions. The roadmap is an important tool in this explicit definition and communication. Realization of this vision will truly require a revolution in the capital projects industry, a challenge that cannot be undertaken lightly. As stated by U.S. President John F. Kennedy in launching the Apollo program in 1962:

January 2003

1-5


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win...The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were."1 The magnitude of the challenge is echoed by John Voeller, Vice President & Chief Knowledge Officer for Black & Veatch and a respected visionary and frequent speaker on technology and the future of the construction industry: “Our industry has made many attempts over the years to develop roadmaps that will guide contributing entities in a common direction to yield maximum progress on the most important issues. Some of these efforts have been well done, but few have found their way into a long-term sustained drive to achieve what was desired. This Capital Projects Technology Roadmapping Initiative can provide the sweeping vision we have long sought to focus the resources of our industry, and the powerful depth we need to define what must be done to attain that vision. I encourage all members of our industry to read this roadmap, to consider it as part of your strategic vision, and to join together to implement it as a national construction industry priority.”2 In a presentation at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Northwest Construction Consumer Council, Mr. Voeller outlined his own vision of the future for the industry. The information presented was so relevant to the vision of this roadmap that we have included it in this document (see Appendix A) with his permission.

1 2

John F. Kennedy, Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort, 12 September 1962. John Voeller, “What If?,” keynote letter for the Capital Projects Technology Roadmapping Initiative, October 2000.

January 2003

1-6


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

2.0 THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY This section provides both and an overview and an in-depth look at the state of the construction/capital facilities industry. A general perspective on the state of the nation’s infrastructure is provided from the American Society of Civil Engineers (from ASCE), followed by an overview of technology issues in the areas of project management, modeling and simulation, communications and data management, and materials. Current federal R&D investments are highlighted in Section 2.1; Section 2.2 identifies specific challenges and opportunities identified by the FIATECH membership and sponsoring organizations. Section 2.3 provides a comprehensive assessment of the specific elements of the generic “capital projects enterprise,” prepared by the San Antonio workshop team.

The ASCE Report Card The capital projects industry is a critical element of the U.S. industrial base, providing and maintaining the world’s largest and most complex national civil infrastructure. However, that infrastructure is under tremendous stresses as a result of insufficient national attention to expanding and maintaining critical assets. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in March released its 2001 Report Card for America's Infrastructure (Figure 2-1), in which the nation received a cumulative grade of "D+" for 12 major areas, including roads and bridges, dams and navigable waterways, aviation, waste handling, water supply, and energy. Causes for such a dismal grade include: • Explosive population growth • Local political opposition and red tape which stymie the development of effective solutions • The growing obsolescence of an aging system - evident in the breakdown of California's electrical generation system and the nation's decaying water infrastructure. Table 2-1 identifies some of the key contributors to the low grades in each category.

Figure 2-1. ASCE rates our nation’s civil infrastructure as just a notch above a failing grade, requiring investments of $1.3 trillion over the next 5 years to address critical issues.

"When you've got rolling blackouts in California, bridges crumbling in Milwaukee, and kids in Kansas City attending class in a former boys' restroom, something is desperately wrong," says ASCE President Robert W. Bein. “The solutions to these problems involve more than money, but as with most things in life, you get what you pay for. America has been seriously under-investing in its infrastructure for decades, and this report card reflects that.” ASCE estimates a needed $1.3 trillion investment over the next 5 years and calls for a renewed partnership between citizens, local, state and federal governments, and the private sector. The 2001 Report Card follows one released in 1998, at which time the infrastructure element earned an average grade of “D.” While there have been efforts to address infrastructure shortfalls, ASCE's analysis shows that conditions remain basically the same. Five categories have gone up slightly but are still average or below. Grades in three categories – transit, aviation and wastewater – have gone down. Two new

January 2003

2-1


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE infrastructure areas, navigable waterways and energy, have kept the grade point average low. Led by an 11-member advisory council, ASCE determined its grades by evaluating the infrastructure's condition, performance, capacity and funding.3 Appendix B reproduces the full Report Card and includes ASCE policy recommendations in each area. Table 2-1. ASCE’s U.S. Infrastructure Report Card for 2001 2001 Grade

1998 Grade

Roads

D+

D-

One-third of the nation's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, costing American drivers an estimated $5.8 billion a year. Road conditions contribute to as many as 13,800 highway fatalities annually. Twenty-seven percent of America's urban freeways - which account for 61% of all miles driven - are congested.

Bridges

C

C-

As of 1998, 29% of the nation's bridges were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, an improvement from 31% in 1996. It is estimated that it will cost $10.6 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies.

Transit

C-

C

Transit ridership has increased 15% since 1995 - faster than airline or highway transportation. Capital spending must increase 41% just to maintain the system in its present condition.

Aviation

D

C-

Airport capacity has increased only 1% in the past 10 years, while air traffic has increased 37%. Airport congestion delayed nearly 50,000 flights in 1 month alone last year. It also jeopardizes safety - there were 429 runway incursions ("near misses") reported in 2000, up 25% from 1999.

Schools

D-

F

Due to aging or outdated facilities or severe overcrowding, 75% of our nation's school buildings are inadequate to meet the needs of school children. Since 1998, the total need has increased from $112 billion to $127 billion.

Drinking Water

D

D

The nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of $11 billion to replace facilities that are nearing the end of their useful life and to comply with federal water regulations. Non-point source pollution remains the most significant threat to water quality.

Wastewater

D

D+

The nation's 16,000 wastewater systems face enormous needs. Some sewer systems are 100 years old. Currently, there is a $12 billion annual shortfall in funding for this category, but federal funding has remained flat for a decade. Over one-third of U.S. surface waters do not meet water quality standards.

Dams

D

C-

There are more than 2,100 unsafe dams in the U.S. There were 61 reported dam failures in the past 2 years. The number of "high-hazard potential dams" - those whose failure would cause loss of life - increased from 9,281 in 1998 to 9,921 in 2001.

Solid Waste

C+

C-

The amount of solid waste sent to landfills has declined 13% since 1990, while the amount of waste recovered through recycling has nearly doubled. Most states have 10 years' worth of landfill capacity and waste-to-energy plants now manage 17% of the nation's trash.

Hazardous Waste

D+

D-

Regulation and enforcement have largely halted the contamination of new sites. Aided by the best cleanup technology in the world, the rate of Superfund cleanup has quickened - though not enough to keep pace with the number of new sites listed as the backlog of potential sites is assessed.

Navigable Waterways

D+

NA*

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a backlog of $38 billion in authorized projects. On the inland waterways system, 44% of all the lock chambers have already exceeded their 50-year design lives. Key deep-draft channels are inadequate for the mega-container ships, which are the world standard for international trade. Transportation demand on waterways is expected to double by 2020, and serious performance problems are likely.

Energy

D+

NA*

Since 1990, actual capacity has increased only about 7,000 MW per year, an annual shortfall of 30%. More than 10,000 MW of capacity must be added each year until 2008 to keep up with the 1.8% annual demand growth. The U.S. energy transmission infrastructure relies on older technology, raising questions of long-term reliability.

Category

Comments

*not covered in prior year

3

Norida Torriente, Civil Engineers Give Nation's Infrastructure A “D+”, American Society of Civil Engineers, March 2001. http://www.asce.org/reportcard/.

January 2003

2-2


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

A Technology-Focused Perspective The continuing technology revolution of the past 20 years has fostered a time of unprecedented opportunity and challenge for the capital projects industry. The booming economy of the last decade – although now showing signs of slowdown – has driven explosive growth in new construction, at the same time both tightening the labor market and increasing the costs of doing business. New technologies, processes, and materials are making design and construction processes more efficient, but these advantages are offset by increased complexity of design and project execution requirements. Increased scope of risk issues, particularly with regards to environmental impacts, is also a challenge. Higher costs and tighter margins have put a premium on the ability to plan efficiently and to execute according to plan.

Where Are We Now, and Where Are We Going? “...Current levels of technology use across the industry are disappointingly low and the industry's ad-hoc approaches toward technology development and adoption fall far short of what's needed. The negative impacts to the industry from these low levels of technology usage invariably include poor or mediocre project results and loss of workers to more attractive industries...that more effectively exploit the power of technology. “The capital facilities industry sorely needs a radically new strategy or blueprint for advancing levels of technology development and usage. Given the fragmentation of the industry, this can only be achieved with fresh energized leadership, widespread commitment to providing the needed resources...

Companies in this sector are investing heavily to enhance their capabilities and competitiveness, and “Any industry-wide strategy for technical adorganizations are working to improve collaboration. vancement must go far beyond the challenges of However, there has not been concerted effort to levtask automation and address the more signifierage our collective resources to systematically cant hurdles associated with task-to-task inteanalyze and attack the barriers to leap-ahead imgration links.” provements in capability and cost-effectiveness. The – James T. O’Connor, Project and Phase-Level Technology industry remains highly fragmented. Numerous Use Metrics for Capital Facility Projects large A&E and construction firms dominate the various sectors of this market, but all rely on an increasingly distributed network of local and regional suppliers for raw materials, prefabricated components and systems, and craft labor. The capital projects industry is truly unique. It applies the same kinds of disciplines and processes as classical manufacturing enterprises, but most of its products are custom-built end items. This industry also operates on a massive scale: the cost of a defective product is far greater than dropping a replacement in the mail to customers. The industry likewise has a unique enterprise paradigm, with different firms playing one or more roles that often vary from project to project. Figure 2-2 shows some of the complexity of these relationships across the life cycle of a typical project.4 What changes yet lie ahead for the industry? What new technologies, materials, processes and systems are emerging that we can leverage to provide more capable and innovative services to our clients? What tools should be developed to enable the fast and efficient delivery of better and more consistent products? How can productivity and skills be enhanced to empower the workforce of tomorrow? From the strategic view, developing new technologies and making better use of existing and emerging technologies is just one piece of the puzzle. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy identifies six trends to which industry must adapt and respond: • Transition to a knowledge-based workforce • Collaborative, reconfigurable workplaces 4

Gagliardo, Reg, Fully Integrated and Automated Project Processes – The Vision; Burns & Roe, CII Annual Conference 2001.

January 2003

2-3


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Figure 2-2. A typical capital project requires integration of multiple players across the project life cycle. This complexity is amplified by the fact that different firms play different roles on different projects, and a largescale project may involve hundreds of subcontractors and suppliers.

• Aging of the U.S. population base • • • • •

Urban rebirth Shrinking construction labor pool and shifting demographics Environmental and health issues Energy issues Insurance and liability issues.5

Several areas that require specific attention are discussed below.

Engineering & Project Management Systems Information and automation technologies are core components of the strategic plans of the U.S. construction industry. However, today’s construction “systems” remain largely ad-hoc creations that often mix state-of-the-art tools with turn-of-the-century practices. They rely largely on advances in other sectors, such as computer-aided design and engineering and infotech tools, to improve capabilities. A recent report by the Center for Construction Industry Studies at the University of Texas at Austin points out that construction projects typically employ a very low level of task integration and automation (rating 3.85 on a scale of 10), with the bulk of that focused on automation in the design phase.6 Advances in information and automation technologies have been identified as key components for achieving the National Construction Goals. The U.S. chemical industry identifies information systems as a key technical discipline in its Technology Vision 2020. Vision 2020 predicts that achieving the smooth flow of information – from concept through design to construction and into plant maintenance and operation – will promote the use of automation and improve economic competitiveness. The 1999 Strategic Plan of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) identifies six major industry trends that will shape the construction industry in the next century. CII identifies fully integrated and automated project processes 5 6

High-Performance Commercial Buildings: A Technology Roadmap, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Building Technology, October 2000. O’Connor, James T. and Mark E Kumashiro et al, Project and Phase-Level Technology Use Metrics for Capital Facility Projects, Center for Construction Industry Studies, December 2000.

January 2003

2-4


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE (FIAPP) as the most significant trend and predicts it will revolutionize the construction industry. Characteristics of FIAPP products and services include one-time data entry; interoperability with design, construction, and operation processes (e.g., virtual construction and construction automation); and user-friendly input/output techniques. Attainment of fully integrated and automated project processes is expected to provide savings of more than $2 billion compared to present practices.7 Automated tools for integrated management of capital projects are emerging. New applications such as Constructware (Figure 2-3), ProjectNet, and ProjectCenter network project participants to a centralized database of project data and informa- Figure 2-3. With applications such as Constructware, tion-management tools to improve communication we are now seeing the first generation of true project management systems for the construction industry. and collaboration. Because the project database is continuously updated, owners, architects, engineers, and subcontractors can immediately access current information to track progress and support realtime decision-making and analysis. Carnegie Mellon University has developed a system concept for a Construction Information Management System (CIAMS) that is designed to automate the ad-hoc reconciliation of the as-built design to the design intent. This system networks the designer, construction management team, and contractors and uses in-process survey information to provide continuously current visibility into configuration control.9 "…The real limitations are

Since CIAMS is aware of the design and “as-is” status of the connot the technology anymore. It's in people's ability to use struction site, it can generate reports to keep project management the technology to get out of aware of construction status. Further, since the team has access to the paradigms they are in." current drawings of the actual state of the site through CIAMS to aid 8 – Evan Yares, Cyon Research in redesign, the designer and project management are able to test potential solutions before implementation. CIAMS is extensible to allow input of survey data from multiple types of “surveyors.” In addition to the traditional survey company, sensors and robots could deliver survey data directly to CIAMS. Future work is planned to prototype a deployable automated assessment sensory system to collect survey points as needed.

Modeling and Simulation Tools Modeling and simulation (Figure 2-4) are increasingly powerful and valuable tools in all aspects of capital project design and engineering. A recent CII study on Electronic Simulation In Construction found that, across industry: • 82% used 3D CAD systems • 67% used virtual reality/visualization tools • 65% used these tools to improve project management

7

Chapman, Robert E., Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems Integration and Automation Technologies in Industrial Facilities, NIST Building & Fire Research Laboratory, June 2000. 8 Tuchman, Janice and Tom Sawyer, Construction's Information Technology Moves to New Phase, report on the A/E/C System 2001 tradeshow, 20 June 2001. 9 Latimer, T, DeWitt IV and Ogbemi Hammond et al, Automatic Detection of Significant Variation From Designed Intent Utilizing Survey Data, Carnegie Mellon University, 2001. http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~dl4s/professional/ISARC2000/

January 2003

2-5


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Mathematical simulation tools are not widely used • Most respondents have made some level of integration and desire more.10 Primary uses of such tools include design interference checks, equipment installation and access, plant layout, maintenance and operations review, constructability review, and construction interference checks. Major barriers to more widespread use include high capital cost of acquisition, uncertain cost/benefit value, a lack of trained users, and, as with most innovations in most industries, resistance to change.

Figure 2-4. Integrated simulation environments offer the potential

to totally automate the capital projects design and systems CAD is certainly not new, although in engineering process. its 3D incarnation its capabilities are not fully exploited across the breadth of the industry. The challenge now is to evolve to a toolset that enables designers to completely model a capital facility design with mathematical accuracy as well as visual fidelity, and to link live design and status information to all elements of the simulation using emerging virtual reality modeling language (VRML) technology (Figure 2-5).

Communications and Data Management Most managers on major capital facility projects will tell you that the most important tool in their arsenal isn’t a computer, but rather a telephone. Communication is critical to exchanging information, identifying problems, getting the right resolutions, and managing the intricate web of interdependent activities from the design phase through handoff of the completed facility to the owner/operator. Beyond mere cell phones, wireless technology offers the potential to monitor and track virtually every activity and item in the construction process. Unfortunately, wireless communications/data management is caught in a swirl of competing standards and differing, largely unmeasured capabilities. Improvement on all counts is on the way, however, and wireless technology – coupled with robust, low-cost sensors, will become the glue to create intelligent facilities in the very near future.

10

Figure 2-5. In ongoing research at NIST, VRML models serve as a web-based 3D view of the construction relevant to the construction process.

project as a testbed for presentation of information Sharp, Bryan,and Electronic Simulation In exploring Construction,the Petrofac, CIIAnnual Conference 2001.

January 2003

2-6


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Materials Concrete and steel form the backbone of every capital facility and account for the largest share of material costs for most projects, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As stated in the U.S. Concrete Industry Technology Roadmap, slightly more than a ton of concrete is produced each year for every human being on the planet — some 6 billion tons a year.11 Key goals for improvement in this area include: • Improved processes for design, manufacturing, transportation, construction, maintenance, and repair • Improved strength and structural performance • Improved energy efficiency in all stages to the material life cycle • Improved environmental performance, including use of recycled waste and byproducts. These same goals can be readily applied to almost any kind of material used in construction of a capital facility. Fasteners, insulation, roofing materials, glass, drywall, brick and mortar, and the materials that make up facility systems and process equipment all represent opportunities for reducing cost, improving performance, extending facility life, enhancing safety and environmental acceptability/sustainability, and improving handling in both staging and construction. A 1998 report prepared by the Materials Technology Institute outlines key barriers to higher-performing materials of construction, operation, and maintenance for chemical processing industries as: • Limited ability to model materials interactions • Lack of fundamental understanding of materials • Limited understanding of degradation in new materials • Limits on manufacturability/size and shape • Lack of support/user participation in development of codes and standards for new materials • Inability to apply life cycle costs on a consistent basis, incorporating the role of materials • Lack of reliable, cost-effective, on-line self-sensing methods • Lack of inexpensive, strong, corrosion-resistant material with low life cycle costs • Risk involved with using new materials.12 The cost of developing and incorporating advanced materials is high. The reliability of new materials is unproven in most practical applications, and exploring their use in a process environment is risky. Significant R&D, from bench scale experiments to the construction and testing of prototypes, is usually necessary before a new material can be implemented. Fabrication into cost-effective forms is often a significant barrier to the use of newly developed materials. In many cases, the expense and risk attached to new materials R&D puts it low on the corporate research priority list.

11 12

U.S. Concrete Industry Technology Roadmap, Draft, July 2001. Technology Roadmap for Materials of Construction, Operation and Maintenance in the Chemical Process Industries, Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Process Industries, Inc., December 1998.

January 2003

2-7


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

2.1 FEDERAL R&D INVESTMENTS A 2001 report by the Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute provides excellent insight into federal investments in the construction sector.13 According to the report, investments in new construction and building typically represent 8% to 10% of the national GDP. Despite the importance of such investments, this industry is generally believed to invest less than 0.5% of the value of its sales in R&D, whereas the national average for other sectors is close to 3%. Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 provide an overview of federal construction and buildings (C&B) R&D Figure 2.1-1. C&B-Related Average Annual Federal by agency and by category, and Appendix E Funding, By Agency provides a brief description of the investments in each area. It is perhaps not surprising to note that the Department of Energy and Transportation collectively account for a more than 60% of the funding, with outlays related to power generation facilities and roads and bridges accounting for over half the total investments as indicated in Figure 2.1.1-2. What is surprising is that technology-related investments for capital facility design, construction, and operation are very limited, accounting for only some 17% of the total.

Figure 2.1-2. C&B-Related Average Annual Federal Funding, By Category 13

Hassell, Scott, Scott Florence and Emile Ettedgui, Summary of Federal Construction, Building, and Housing Related Research & Development in FY1999, Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2001.

January 2003

2-8


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

2.2 CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES Numerous agencies and organizations have articulated goals for the construction and capital projects industry. A 1999 report by the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Construction and Building sums these up well at a high level, specifically citing: • 50% reduction in delivery time • 50% reduction in operation, maintenance, and energy costs • 50% less waste and pollution • 50% more durability and flexibility • 50% reduction in construction work illnesses and injuries.14 While these targets are somewhat generic, they do identify the areas where significant improvement is desired. Specific goals targeted by FIATECH include: • Seamless integration of information flow among all participants throughout entire project life cycle.

The construction industry must go digital, get rid of blueprints and get everything on computer, if for no other reason than to be able to send information contained within them instantly to anywhere in the world. “Also, you need to come up with a single standard; there are too many now. The team that can develop a new standard will take over the industry, and that standard is going to have to be on the web.” – Frank Feather, at CMD Group’s Annual North American Construction Forecast, October 2000

• Integration of leading-edge technologies in the areas of CAD and CAE, advanced communications, field sensing and tracking, modularization, pre-construction, field automation, and construction automation to provide a powerful “system of systems” for cradle-to-grave management and execution of complex capital facilities projects. • 30-40% reductions in cost and schedule. • Reduced design changes and rework. • Rapid detection and correction of differences between design intent and in construction – both inprocess and as-built. • Highly accurate as-built information for operation and maintenance (O&M) and future renovation. • Breakthrough improvements in quality and performance, resulting in improved ROI. Specific challenges cited by participants at the FIATECH Spring Members Meeting in April 2001 are listed below. These are presented in no particular priority, but rather represent the raw feedback from the participants, with minor editing for clarity. • Need to be able to better identify and apply current technologies that enhance productivity and enable us to work smarter. • Reduce timelines for facility construction. • Redundant data entry, inefficient change management, lack of systems interoperability, design vs. as-built discrepancy, and design interpretation (drawings confusion) are all pervasive problems. • Need real-time capture of as-built configuration. • Need living building model. • Improve customer satisfaction (30% rework is average). • Emerging enterprise models (contracting/life cycle models) do not adequately address risk. 14

Snell, Jack E. and Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Interagency Program for Technical Advancement in Construction and Building, National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Construction and Building, 1999.

January 2003

2-9


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Need intellectual property protection. • Need a master data model to provide information connectivity. • Need seamless sharing of information. • Calculation of Total Installed Cost is very difficult due to lack of data at the detail level (e.g., pipe quantity, number of welds). • Must be able to capture accurate final information from outside sources (in right format), using a common data structure. • Data available is too often inaccurate, insufficient, and/or outdated. • Lack of knowledge management tools and discipline requires multiple information re-creation loops. • Lack of cooperation and collaboration • Need to improve safety and overall industry safety performance. • Need ability to simulate and trade off multiple parameters. • Improve material conveyance. • Multispectral scanning of existing structures to capture exact as-built configuration and condition, IR, magnetic, RF, acoustic, ultrasound, MRI • Protocols in EPC model have to be application-specific. How do you deal with application evolution? • Need a universal application integration framework. • Now we have islands of automation for each task, none of which communicate. Getting the right info to the right person at the right time is a problem. • Vendors, constructors, and stakeholders all have multiple islands of automation, which is making information management complex and costly. • Maintaining configuration control so everyone knows changes and how they affect each piece. Currently, everyone works off a different ‘sheet of music,’ which delays technical decisions and propagates problems. How do you get the word to everyone who needs the information? How do you track how a new change affects past work? Currently there is no way to disseminate changes. • Decision-making drives competitiveness. Need informed decision making. Major issue is 24 hour engineering – many changes happening simultaneously. • We would trade difficulties on front end for improving safety – are there technologies that will help that happen? Must build lessons learned into construction processes. How do we automate safety in design? • Electronic design is not maintained throughout the project. The entire process needs to build on a common design. • Need targeted/automated knowledge management for construction projects. • Need timely capture and transfer of information between phases/applications/stakeholders. • Need informed decision-making process including rationale and consequences.

January 2003

2-10


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

2.3 CURRENT STATE ASSESSMENT This section provides a detailed assessment of the current state of industry based on a functional breakdown of the generic capital projects enterprise (Figure 2.3-1). This functional model was used by the 2001 San Antonio workshop team as a framework for defining needs and gaps in current capabilities as well as defining the technology R&D requirements presented in Section 5 of this document. The following paragraphs walk through each element and sub-element of the model, presenting the context of needs against which the project plans presented in Section 7 were developed.

Figure 2.3-1. The Functional Model for the Capital Projects Enterprise.

2.3.1 Project Definition & Planning Today’s capital projects industry is a testament to vision, innovation, and technological prowess. Yet, it is widely accepted that the industry could accomplish more – faster, better, and with fewer resources. The definition and planning phase is the lynchpin of any capital project, as it defines and bounds what can be accomplished, and sets the stage for success. Technology is certainly a major enabler in this phase, but the real limiting factor is the ability to focus human talents to define and put into action the plans and the resources to accomplish the best possible result defined by the business model. The nature of the industry itself represents a challenge, since in the purest sense there is no such pure entity as a “capital projects enterprise” that embraces the entire engineer-procure-construct-operate-maintain-decommission (EPCOMD) life cycle. There are design/build firms, engineering firms, architectural firms, construction firms, and small companies specializing in hundreds of various disciplines; large manufacturing enterprises that manage their own projects; and federal and state agencies who serve both as customer and contractor for different kinds of projects, all of which are invariably unique. Current business trends have many companies questioning the precepts of their business models, as disruptive change seems in the offing. The environment is evolving quickly as new technology and new alignments arise. However, the rate and effectiveness of change is hampered by a lack of continuity and collaboration across the industry. A fundamental key to improving the way capital projects are done is to improve the integration and collaboration of all the contributing disciplines, from the front end of the process forward. Business and technological tools both must contribute to the solution.

January 2003

2-11


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Information and information automation technologies are key enablers of the project definition and planning function. The ability to accurately capture and reuse information throughout the design process, without errors, omissions, or redundant input, is key. While much progress has been made in use of 3-D CAD and in applications systems, there is much more to do in maximizing the benefits of innovation. A recent Construction Industry Institute (CII) study on Electronic Simulation in Construction found that, across industry, 82% of the respondents use 3-D CAD systems and 67% use virtual reality/visualization tools, but few use mathematical simulation or have any degree of integration between different systems.15 The tools are primarily used for design interference checks, equipment installation and access planning, plant layout, maintenance and operations review, and constructability review. Major barriers to more widespread use include the high cost of acquisition, uncertain cost/benefit value, a lack of trained users, and resistance to change. CAD and CAE are certainly not new, and although some companies are moving towards 4-D CAD (integrating schedule functionality), the basic capabilities of these technologies are not fully exploited across the breadth of the industry. One promising trend is an emerging consensus among U.S. engineering/construction firms to standardize on best-in-class commercial tools and to license and share best-in-class internally developed systems, to do away with the cost of reinventing tools that already exist. Japan and Singapore are already benefiting from such cooperative approaches. Multiple factors contribute to the challenge of providing the best solutions on time at the best cost. Lead times from idea to facility completion and operational hand-off are long. This is particularly true in projects with high public view and participation. The decision process for roads, dams, airports, power plants and similar projects can stretch out over many years, making it very difficult to provide cost effective solutions. Technology does not stand still, and the designs are often frozen with technology that is out of date before the facility is operational. Modeling and simulation (M&S) has emerged as a key component of the project conceptualization process, and virtual reality has captured the imagination of many in the industry. However, most M&S use is for visualization. Few tools are in widespread use that apply the mathematical capabilities of modeling systems for decision analysis and design optimization. Knowledge management (KM) is also receiving attention as a strategy for cost savings and protection of core competencies. Most current KM applications emphasize capture of specific expertise, lessons learned, and reuse of legacy data and experience from past projects. The real opportunity, yet untapped, is the capture of experiential and scientific knowledge in useful form, and the integration of that knowledge with M&S tools to enable creation of true automated project definition and design systems. The lack of interoperability of design and applications systems is a major problem in all aspects of the capital projects industry. In project definition and planning, lack of interoperability necessitates the use of translators and re-input of data, which introduces transcription errors and adds to project costs and time. New tools are emerging, but integration and interoperability are not universally built into these systems. Therefore, business planning systems do not communicate directly with design systems, which do not communicate well with project management systems – and so on, throughout all phases of the project. Table 2.3.1-1 provides a top-level characterization of the current state of industry regarding project definition and planning, which is discussed in further detail below. The table is intended to provide a brief snapshot of the state of art and practice, which companies can use to assess their own level of capability.

15

Sharp, Bryan, Electronic Simulation In Construction, Petrofac, CII Annual Conference 2001.

January 2003

2-12


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 2.3.1-1. State Map for Project Definition & Planning Sub-Element

Lagging Examples

State of Practice

Business/ Facility/Project Planning

• Right people not included • Decisions based on reaction to changing markets; no long term perspective • Lack of documentation & information • Physical mock-ups • Standardization results in systems without neutral formats • Cost predicted based on experience/rule of thumb

• Few “what if” business case modeling applications • Update previous plans to create one for the new project • Silos of planning • Top down or bottom up analysis • 3-D modeling

Conceptual Process/Facility Design

• • • • • •

• 3-D designs for many elements • Attention to past experience but knowledge not systematized • M&S not integrated with design • Collaboration matrix (DuPont) • Few contractor incentives for excellence

Detailed Process/Facility Design

Manual conceptual designs Little accommodation of technology maturation Limited supplier interaction Multiple/redundant data entry Lack of standard EPC protocols for communication Lack of access or consolidation of commonly exchanged data Experience-based, but “lessons learned” not integrated Little attention to enveloping technology maturation Multiple design iterations Low fidelity in predicting for long lead requirements Manual markup/recreating drawings

Detailed Engineering Design

• Very high reuse of past designs; low innovation • Manual integration of design inputs from different sources using different systems • High costs due to long delivery times for equipment and materials

• “Lessons Learned” marginally integrated in design process • Integrated systems with vendors are not synchronized • Limited collaboration

January 2003

• • • •

• 3-D designs • Widespread use of M&S, but not well integrated with design • Integrated costing systems • Use of CAD but with a drawing mindset instead of a data mindset

2-13

State of Art/ Best Practice • Highly integrated teams • Institutional “Lessons Learned” (e.g., Bechtel/Chevron) • Utilization of accurate costs models (e.g., Bechtel) • Standardized EPC • Front-end loading analysis (e.g., DuPont/Chevron) • Gatekeeping Reviews (e.g., DuPont) • CII Project Definition Rating Index • Moving to 4-D designs including schedule • Use of ERP to guide design/supply network • Use of M&S systems • Process Hazards Screening Review (e.g., DuPont) • Standardized design (e.g., Bechtel and Intel) • Standardized EPC application suites (e.g., Bechtel) • Procurement cycles factored into design/schedules • Formal interface resolution process (e.g., Chevron) • Constructability review (e.g., Bechtel) • Web-based collaborative environments • Increasing integration of the supply network in design • Change management (e.g., Bechtel)


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 2.3.1.1 Business/Facility Planning The business planning function in today’s companies varies from informal evaluation of alternatives to rigorous assessment systems that evaluate market, cost, schedule, risk, liabilities, and other factors. In some cases, the planning process is long and arduous. In others, it is characterized by speed and flexibility. A public project that requires condemnation of property and the use of large tracts of land might go through years of review and debate before decisions are made. Environmental impact statements and approvals can add many months to the process. On the other extreme, privately owned corporations may make large capital decisions very quickly and may navigate the regulatory requirements with little difficulty – particularly when the local economy and political structure is supportive. The capital project selection process varies across organizations. For some, capital funds must be specifically programmed into the budget based on a defined need. For others, funds are set aside on an annual basis and projects compete for those funds. Decisions are often made on the power of personal persuasion, more than on the soundness of the business case. In other instances, funds are allocated to projects just because the process dictates that a certain amount of funds will be spent.

Front-End Loading Tools Are Key to Success at DuPont DuPont, one of the world’s most diverse manufactures, applies a discipline called front-end loading (FEL) to maximize efficiencies in its capital projects. While this has nothing to do with moving dirt, it does have everything to do with assuring a solid foundation from inception for every project. First, a Business Objectives Letter is used to create alignment between business goals and project objectives. This describes the business objectives for the project, what the business expects of the project team, and the criteria/principles that the team will follow in developing the project. Gatekeeping Reviews at the end of each stage of FEL evaluate adherence to capital effectiveness best practices and business objectives. This is a prerequisite to going on to the next stage of the project, and gives the team an opportunity to review and gain buy-in with the project sponsors and business leaders. These discussions also enable all the stakeholders to interact to assure project success. Process Hazards Screening Reviews are held to identify potential acute hazards and concerns, and to recommend any broad scope changes that could significantly reduce the hazards. This step also determines if detailed hazards reviews are needed. The review includes assessment of occupational health and toxicity issues, initial hazards classifications per standards, and identification of critical components, equipment, and systems. – Contributed by Judith W. Passwaters, DuPont Company

Today’s systems are addressing these issues, with best-practice companies using integrated teams and structured analysis in project selection, and, in some cases, knowledge-based decision support systems are being applied. What makes this process work is not the individual components. Rather, the real benefit is that the process is ingrained into the corporate culture. Everyone involved understands the importance of “getting it right up front,” which is the key to avoiding problems downstream. The deficiencies of the current state focus on several major concerns, all of which center on getting a handle on ALL the data – from seismic charts and hydrogeological analysis to competitor intelligence and commodity pricing – making sure it is correct and current, and then extracting the vital information needed to make the best decisions. As most capital project managers would attest, the biggest problems do not come from the data you have, but rather from the data you lack. Scoping studies, cost estimates, and related business functions are often done with a less than full awareness of relevant information. All the information needed for good decisions is rarely available, so managers make best-guess decisions based on their experience and on input from their technical experts. If the right information is not captured up front, the right knowledge is not integrated into the planning process.

January 2003

2-14


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Capture and reuse of corporate experience is another area of great need. Access to knowledge about previous projects in the current state is usually limited to individual expertise and word of mouth, and lessons learned are not, in general, systematically documented or applied. A key to success for most projects is bringing on board early the managers, engineers, staff, and construction foremen who have “done it before,” who can translate their experience to smart decisions in design, planning, and execution, and who can spot problems before they snowball. This leads to another problem – access to expertise. The true expert managers are often available only to the large, high-visibility projects, and then limited or unavailable to the rest of the enterprise’s project portfolio. Communication and decision authority are important concerns. Communication in the planning process is usually inadequate to assure understanding and agreement among all the invested stakeholders, so the foundation for decision may be less than optimum. Decision authority for a capital project usually resides in a single individual relying on the advice of the subject-matter experts, who despite best intentions may have their own agendas, blind spots, and incomplete information. The result of these deficiencies is usually conflict, cost overruns, and delays. Leading companies are taking action to improve business planning and decision making. Across the industry: • More decisions are being made based on methodologies that support participative business case analysis and risk assessment. • Decision support systems are emerging to guide selection of best choices and best options. • Highly integrated project teams are involved from the beginning of the process. • Lessons learned are formally documented and applied in the development of future projects. • Accurate costing models, CAD and CAE systems, and clear documentation of design decisions are emerging as best practices. The CII has created tools based on industry Best Practices that are excellent guides for project definition and planning including areas related to constructability. Other best practices focus on teambuilding and partnering. The PDRI – the Project Definition Rating Index for Building Projects – and the PDRI-I for Industrial Projects offer comprehensive checklists that support scope evaluation and identification of areas for improvement. 2.3.1.2 Conceptual Process/Facility Design Today’s biggest challenges in conceptual design include the fast pace of technology change and the difficulty in creating accurate and complete conceptual designs that support excellence in the detailed design phase. Engaging an undetermined supply network to support the design process is also problematic. The pace of technology change is a huge issue. Even in highway construction, new underlayments and treatments are greatly extending the lifespan and serviceability of highway materials. New building materials and building processes are continually emerging. This places a premium on a shorter design phase, while January 2003

2-15

Reusable Electronic Designs Slash Time and Cost Bechtel is one of the world's largest engineering and construction firms, with over $14.5 billion in new business booked in FY 2000. Reductions in delivery time and plant construction costs are key factors in their success. To accomplish this, Bechtel initiated a process in the early 1990s of standardizing power plant designs. There are less than 10 standard designs, each of which includes a set of process drawings and physical models along with associated performance and cost data. These standard designs are stored electronically, enabling rapid modification and configuration to a specific customer requirement. This process significantly reduced the delivery time and cost of power plants over the past decade including Egypt’s first privately owned power plant, Sidi Krir, completed within budget and ahead of schedule in December ‘01. – Thomas Ulrich, “Bringing Power to the People,” Bechtel Briefs, April 2001. www.bechtel.com/pdf/brief0401.pdf


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE quickly and efficiently integrating the latest advances prior to and during construction. The aerospace industry has faced and met similar challenges, albeit not easily. The Patriot missile system that first saw action in Desert Storm in the early ‘90s started life as a program called SAMD in the 1960s – a staggering 30-year development span. Aggressive efforts by industry and government both changed the defense business model and leveraged new technologies to radically reduce time-to-market. The results have been amazing: the winning prototype of the new, radically advanced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft started the design phase in 1998 and began first flights only 2 years later in a “same as production” configuration which will begin rolling off the assembly line in 2004-05. While the challenges of the capital projects industry are different from those of aerospace, much can be learned by applying lessons from other sectors.

The Issue of Interoperability Lack of industry standards has long impeded management of the planning stages of capital projects. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the most visible champion for R&D that supports this need and is working towards product data standards and integrated information systems to enable more efficient project planning. A major thrust in this area is the Construction Integration and Automation Technology (CONSIAT) program, which is aimed at significantly reducing cycle time and life-cycle cost through integration and automation of project information. Another notable NIST activity is PlantSTEP, being developed through a consortium of EPCOM companies and suppliers. The primary focus is to develop and implement data exchange standards based on ISO 10303. This effort is coordinated with related activities such as PIEBASE (Process Industries Executives for Achieving Business Advantage Using Standards for Data Exchange), a global organization for process industry consortia and companies.

The most prevalent impact of technology change is in process selection, where disruptive change can deliver dramatic impact for better or worse. The International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) is In the ideal state, facilities and structures are dedeveloping Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) as signed in an optimal way for specific processes a basis for information sharing in engineering, conor uses, and flexibility is maintained for future struction, architecture, and facilities management. IFC project models define individual buildings for change. While this sounds good in theory, it is which compliant applications can exchange infordifficult in practice. An auto factory is designed mation accurately. Current activities include adyears ahead to make cars with existing processes vances in XML standards to enable seamless flow and equipment, and to maximize utilization of of text-based information via the web; development existing capital equipment throughout the facilof IFCs to support code compliance applications ity’s life. However, the emergence of the fuel cell during design; and IFCs related to cost estimating as an alternative to internal combustion threatens and scheduling. to render moot much of these sunken investments. In aerospace, free-form fabrication methods are showing huge promise, but the infrastructure requirements would make existing processing plants and equipment obsolete. In these types of cases, the biggest barrier to implementation of the new technology has little to do with the technology maturity, but rather the business imperative to preserve the value of existing capital investments. The electronics industry has responded with the “fast turnaround fab” – a facility designed to produce for a limited time span, based on the most current technology, and then be changed out or decommissioned. There is no way to accurately predict and accommodate future change, but there is certainly a clear need to do a better job. The design process must be better integrated. The conceptual design should be driven by the planning phase, and should drive the detailed design process – with data entered only once. In the current state this is often not the case, and continuous flow and efficient building of information as the project progresses is not common practice. Lessons learned are not often nor effectively shared, and although management of cost and time information is improving, there is still much room for improvement in cost models. Design contingencies cover the uncertainties, so it is reasonable to expect contingencies to shrink as information accuracy and completeness improve.

January 2003

2-16


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE One of the biggest uncertainties in conceptual design is caused by lack of information from the supply network. The conceptual design may precede the contract, and the suppliers may not yet be selected, or, if selected, the detailed specifications are not detailed enough to support the conceptual design. Therefore, the conceptual design is based on assumptions that may not be correct. The compression of the timeline from decision to design, the creation of the supply network early in the process, and effective communications with all stakeholders are key elements of today’s best practices. 2.3.1.3 Detailed Process/Facility Design The emergence of 3-D CAD, the use of virtual reality and simulation tools, electronic specifications and work management, and the growth of collaborative environments have driven a revolution in the way leading companies create process and facility designs. The major deficiencies of the current state of this phase are quite similar to those of the conceptual phase. The challenge is to flesh out the concept in sufficient detail to optimize the feasibility of the design to accomplish its intended purpose, lock in the cost targets, and firm up the team and refine the plan of accomplishment for the project. This is also the phase where the design agent and the customer/end user come to grips with the realities of cost and schedule, iterating the design to achieve the best tradeoff between what the customer wants the facility to do, and what they are willing and able to pay for. The key industry challenges are to reduce the cycle time of design iterations, and to improve the fidelity and integration of information used to drive design tradeoff decisions. In current practices, different elements of a facility design are simply “black boxes� on the engineering drawings to everyone except the person or team responsible for that element. This mindset works fine as long as the design of each element is developed to the same degree of fidelity and completeness, but any errors of omission or commission at this stage can have drastic impacts downstream in the detailed design, construction, and O&M phases. While modeling and simulation for visualization and fit is in fairly widespread use, mathematically based simulation for process selection and detailed design lags. Enterprise models are used for visualization, but a standard hierarchical structure that supports detailed, scientifically and mathematically based models of process flows and unit processes does not yet exist to any meaningful degree. Another deficiency is the lack of the utilization of knowledge systems for detailed design. In many sectors and applications, knowledge-based design advisors are augmenting and automating the design process. While design advisors are emerging in the capital projects industry, utilization is low and the pace should be accelerated. Integration and interoperability barriers limit the effectiveness of collaboration and add to the cost and time of detailed design. Seamless integration of engineering and planning systems is a goal of the capital projects industry that is shared with all sectors. These issues pervade every aspect of the capital facility life cycle, but are most critical in the detailed design phase because this is where the ultimate performance parameters and life-cycle costs of the facility are established. The focus on seamless operations highlights the need for technologies and tools to assure that the information and processes are handed off as efficiently as possible. The diversity of processes, the lack of adherence to standards that provide neutral formats for data exchange, and the lack of a common nomenclature all hinder progress toward integration. These factors contribute to ad-hoc systems that underperform. Inertia and the size of the integration challenge contribute to the perpetuation of the status quo. Collaborative, focused effort is required to solve the problems that are too large and intractable for one company to resolve. Retrofitting and renovation of existing facilities presents unique challenges in the detailed design phase. Although the original design requirements and documentation may be accessible, they are often out of date and rarely available in digital form. As-built discrepancies are usually not discovered until the reno-

January 2003

2-17


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE vation is already under way, leading to a problematic array of issues such as safety hazards, redesign, and wasted time and resources. 2.3.1.4 Detailed Engineering Design The requirements of the detailed engineering design phase emphasize the absolute necessity of accurate information and documentation transferred seamlessly from the preceding design phases. In the current state for the large, integrated A&E and EPCOM firms, the various disciplines such as electrical, mechanical, piping, HVAC, etc. should utilize compatible systems, and the integration of the designs should be seamless. However, the challenge of integrating across these domains – including subcontractors and suppliers – still remains. The larger the number of companies involved, the larger this problem becomes. Utilization of past experience and proven designs is imperative for cost-effective, timely response. Many companies have institutionalized the process to the point that configuration of a new project is almost like working a puzzle, with modular components plugged together to satisfy specific needs. While this practice reduces design cost (and design uncertainty), it can also perpetuate lessthan-optimal features and leave little room for innovation. A beneficial trend is toward the reuse of information AND knowledge to assure that every design is the best it can be. Another characteristic of the current state is initiation of construction before the design is complete. Portions of the design needed early to meet schedule (e.g., for longlead items) are released while the design process continues for the rest of the project elements.

Tale of the COMET: Better Design, Better Estimates In a business where installed piping can cost over $42,000 per meter, how important is an accurate estimate? When the cost of piping in power plants is often equal to the costs of all of the other bulk commodities combined, the importance is self-evident. To provide rapid and accurate estimates of material quantities, Bechtel has developed a 3D prototyping tool known as the Conceptual Modeling and Estimating Tool (COMET). COMET includes a reference database of objects and hierarchical groups of objects that enables rapid 3D modeling of a prospective project. Users can immediately access thousands of model components for all properties of any component in the model. COMET can route nearly 1,000 pipelines along with power cables and electrical raceways in less than five seco n d s and generate an accurate list of the quantities of materials needed in minutes. The data are then used to establish a highly reliable estimate of costs, and can also be used to predesign large-bore piping systems. The success of COMET for piping illustrates the feasibility for developing similar applications for other bulk estimating activities, such as civil and electronic commodities. Jean Burke Hoppe, “Tale of the COMET,” Bechtel Briefs, August 2001. www.bechtel.com/pdf/ brief0801.pdf

While this is believed to be a beneficial practice, releasing partial and incomplete designs introduces opportunities for error (thus requiring costly and time-consuming change orders) and greatly hinders the ability of the engineering team to optimize the design as a unified whole. Design change management is a glaring deficiency. In many cases, even with good project management systems, the change process reverts to paper-copy and word-of-mouth methods. Some changes are made in the field unknown to the engineers, and may not be documented in the as-built drawings. The solution to this challenge is three-fold. First, the change management process needs to be tightened; second, the design packages need to be complete and accurate, eliminating the need for change orders; and third, the process needs the flexibility to collaboratively review, approve, and capture changes made in the field. The current state includes wasted effort due to a lack of integration and collaboration between phases of the design process and design systems. The most visible attribute of this deficiency is multiple data entry – the recreation of data simply because the originating system does not have the ability to push the design through to maturity in the desired finished form. However, perhaps even more damaging is the fact that errors in data exchanges between systems and companies can go unnoticed if they are not readily apparent.

January 2003

2-18


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The trend in most design organizations is towards a paperless environment. While this may work well in the office, the construction crews are expert at the art of lining drawings up on a toolbox and working through the solution. The “paperless construction site” dictates the exploration of new information delivery systems that work in the construction environment. It also dictates emphasis on training and cultural change. Management and integration of vendor data is also problematic. Vendors are often slow to provide the necessary information for initial and detailed designs, which leads to assumptions being folded into the design basis. The lack of standards for vendor data, the lack of flexibility and the inability to use the original source data to generate the required end-user view, and the lack of assurance of the accuracy of the vendor data all lead to potential uncertainty and error in design decisions. Global collaboration presents a new set of challenges. The collaborative environment works well, when everything else works well – when there are no conflicts. However, problem resolution still often dictates face-to-face discussions. Extensive requirements for stakeholder input are often costly as the span of stakeholders extends in a global context. Collaborative issues between the project team must be resolved for time zone differentials, language and culture differences, data formats, conflicting codes and standards, and the cost and availability of bandwidth, especially in remote areas. In addition, the complexities of multiple jurisdictions, regulations and standards all contribute to the difficulty in coordinating and implementing the facility design. One technique that is working today for Bechtel Corporation involves an established partnership between the conceptual design phase and the detailed design. The conceptual design is performed at the Center of Excellence in Maryland. The detailed design is done at a low-cost design center in New Delhi. Collaborative tools and regular communication create a partnership (effectively a 24-hour design shop) that delivers power plants in shorter time and at lower cost. While the issues highlighted in this section are yet to be fully resolved, much progress is being made. Different participants in different projects are eliminating many problems by utilizing common systems, getting involved early, and staying with the project until successful checkout and operational handover/turnover. This is not the ultimate solution, but it is good business for the firms, and reduces risks to project success. In fact, several of the large A&E firms are finding new profits in operations and maintenance activities as well. Progressive vendors are providing 3-D models of the footprint of their equipment and detailed performance models as part of the bid package – a step in the right direction. By looking at the current state, the challenge for the future is clear. More use of knowledge – not just data – from past designs, better use of modeling and simulation in assuring the desired operation of the facility, integration across diverse systems, and automation of design operations will enable more effective design to meet the requirements of the business models. However, the greatest challenge is the need to capture all the right data in the first place, from the people who are doing the work, from the vendors who are providing products and services, and from the corporate experience.

2.3.2 Construction Execution The construction industry is as old as mankind, and the traditions are deeply rooted. Therefore, change often comes more slowly than in other sectors. The construction element of the capital projects industry is in a state of flux as it responds to dramatic changes brought on by the Information Age. No matter which area you examine – material/equipment manufacture, procurement, or site construction – the ongoing evolution is very uneven. Technology-based systems handle many construction-related tasks in fantastic new ways, but the multiplicity of these new tools and the fact that few “talk” to each other adds an element of chaos to businesses that are trying hard to streamline their processes and do more and better work with fewer resources and increasingly tighter margins.

January 2003

2-19


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE John Voeller of Black & Veatch points out that in construction execution, “The fundamentals here are exactly the same now as ten years ago or ten years from now. We must figure out a way to deliver a clear, unambiguous statement of what the task should yield, the tools to accomplish it, the resources to accomplish it, the documents to guide it, the materials to use, and the requirements that must be satisfied before the task is considered complete.” Construction is still largely a labor-intensive process driven by paper, experienced foremen, and skilled craftsmen. There are several reasons for the slow transition away from a paper-based environment. Assured configuration control and positive security of data are the overriding issues. Another is that paper is simply easier to use in the typical work environment. Still another is that construction is a very fragmented and mobile industry; local subcontractors do the vast majority of the work. Little time is spent in the office, and site management is focused on making sure the right bodies, materials, and equipment get to where they need to be. Most construction personnel find it easier and quicker to figure out what needs to be done by looking at a blueprint at the job site, mentally translating that to what needs to be done, and then using their own experience to “make it work.” Also, while digital documentation and electronic signatures are becoming more acceptable for capturing the official paper trail, industry has yet to be convinced of the ability to protect and control intellectual property. In addition, most companies and owners still prefer to have signed original paper documents in the case of audits or litigation. A common problem is that engineering documentation often does not provide adequate information to get the job done effectively. This problem spans issues from the awareness and availability of specifications, regulations and compliance, and matching of needs and capabilities on a global basis. The norm is reliance on the experience and expertise of the staff and crew. The skills of the workforce are by and large excellent, and this state of affairs does get the job done – albeit not as well as it might. The supply of skilled labor is a major concern. Most construction workers are temporary employees, many of whom are managed through agents at the local union hall and in the extended network of halls across the country. For many companies the skilled labor concerns extend globally, where not only are basic craft skills a concern, but language barriers present challenges in effective execution of the project. Access to the right information by all members of the supply network is another major concern. For example, specification availability, lessons learned, and compliance documentation need to be strengthened. Responding to RFIs is a challenge across the industry, and change management also is a major structural obstacle across all aspects of construction execution. Language and perspective barriers between engineers, business managers, and construction staff create an inherent adversarial relationship. Engineers are concerned with the technical details and may not be sensitive to the business issues. Business managers are focused on passing final inspection on time and within budget. These facts of human nature are unlikely to change. However, the goal for all must be to design and build an end product (facility or structure) that most efficiently satisfies the customer’s intent. The project design and construction execution systems must support this goal, and technology must facilitate communication to help each integral contributor do their job as best they can. Issues like constructability, modularity, construction-driven design, codes, etc. must all be part of the design process from inception. The challenge is, how does the front end (Engineering) know what the back end (Construction) needs to know before a project is engineered? Communication is also critical in today’s globalized manufacturing arena. Language barriers have always been a concern, but they’re becoming a larger issue as construction becomes increasingly more global and as more information is exchanged electronically. A common vocabulary for the specification and communication of requirements for components, materials, and skills is greatly needed. Marketing departments frequently bid on opportunities without guaranteed assurance of ability to meet the requirements, on schedule. This is certainly not unique to the capital projects industry, and highlights a common problem that requirements for any complex project are subject to different interpretations.

January 2003

2-20


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The continuing trend toward centralized procurement causes products and services to be bought without an expert understanding of what is needed in the short- and long-term contexts, a problem heightened when multiple projects are globally dispersed. Companies also need to know that manufacture/fabrication capacity is available to back up commitments for cost and schedule performance. It may be fair to say that there has been little change over many years in basic materials and methods used in capital construction. The industry remains dominated by concrete and steel, and the associated construction methods required to place and assemble them. Today, more than a ton of concrete is produced each year for each human being on earth. This dominance may not change quickly, but the characteristics will. While advances in secondary systems such as windows, interior/exterior surfaces, roofing, mechanical, electrical, controls, and communications have led to better safety, energy efficiency, environmental impact, reduced maintenance, and improved durability, the construction of primary structures has seen little change in the last several decades. Construction processes and methods continue to be incrementally improved. For example, many structures are now simultaneously erected above-ground and excavated below-ground by first sinking the structure into the ground then building upward from the structure while at the same time excavating and building substructure. Innovations in joint technologies have replaced labor-intensive bolting and riveting with engineered connections that use slotted joints locked by rapid welds (which also improves force distribution for earthquake-prone regions). Trends such as these are setting the stage for breakthroughs in the fundamental ways that structures are designed and assembled. However, it should be pointed out that innovations in construction methods and techniques can take years to permeate industry, since such innovations typically compete with long-entrenched standards. Off-the-shelf technologies are having significant impact in many ways. GPS and 3-D laser positioning is more frequently being used for site excavation, terrain contouring, and material placement. Positioning data is transmitted and integrated with the hydraulics in earthmoving equipment to control elevation, cross-slope contour, and position for accurate and low-cost excavation, reducing the need for high operator skill and ground-based personnel for field measurement. The pace of development and integration of these kinds of technologies needs to be rapidly accelerated across the spectrum of construction processes to enhance the global competitiveness of the industry. Table 2.3.2-1 on the following page provides a top-level characterization of the current state of industry regarding construction execution, which is discussed in further detail below. The table is intended to provide a brief snapshot of the state of art and practice, which companies can use to assess their own level of capability. 2.3.2.1 Manufacture/Fabrication This sub-element addresses the materials, equipment, and products that are brought to the job site. It includes the fabrication, both on and offsite, of modules and systems that become part of the capital facility. Materials of construction have remained much the same over the last few decades, and changes may continue to be evolutionary instead of revolutionary. Concrete, steel, and lumber continue to dominate the industry, with present trends pressuring the wood products. The driver is performance at low cost. Examples of present trends may point to future directions. The rising prices for wood have made steel studs cost effective alternatives, and the shift is rather dramatic. Structures Insulated Panel Systems (SIPS), modules that provide insulation and structural support and lock in place, may be the forerunner of the next wave of wall construction. Corrugated panels are replacing brick and mortar for cost effective industrial buildings. Steel dominates the structural applications, with more pressure toward lighter weight, high strength materials. Cost effective composite structures are looking more promising for some applications; however new material systems are finding acceptance paced by the slow development of business opportunities.

January 2003

2-21


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Table 2.3.2-1. State Map for Construction Execution Sub-Element

Lagging Examples

State of Practice

State of Art/ Best Practice

• Steel shop, pipe shop, and other crafts go through a redundant process by recreating drawings for their own use. This data becomes disconnected from other planning. The shop floor is paperbased because projects are hard to visualize on a computer screen. • Few advances in basic materials and methods • Source selection and qualification slows procurement process • Focus on low bids instead of the right bids • Disconnects between design, purchasing, and construction – what was bought may be what was spec’d, but not what is really needed

• Still a paper-driven process with inefficient info exchange • Extensive use of high-quality, standard materials and prefabricated components

• Sketch tools for capturing pipe reroutes • Similar sketch tool for construction inspection simultaneously allows multiple submissions • Integrating preferred suppliers offers benefits for standard processes • Airships being used to transport large components to sites

• 75% confidence in top suppliers’ deliveries • Enormous proliferation in specifications • Severe problems with site theft

Construction & PreCommissioning

• Budget and designs often presented after the fact to justify the outcome • Very high reliance on construction team to “make it work” • Extensive inspection & rework

Startup/ Commissioning & Handover

• Change management nonexistent or poor • Little or no documentation for incoming operations staff

• Strong focus on using modern tools & equipment, modular designs & components • In-process inspections • Documentation still inaccurate and incomplete

• Major concrete supplier in Mexico City keeps trucks on road constantly to speed delivery • Good balance between long-lead and just-in-time practices • Coordinated acquisition reform to eliminate barriers to efficient procurement (e.g., Alliance for Construction Excellence, Design/Build Institute initiatives) • 3 and 4-D design for major and minor systems • Construction planners using Intergraph to check on-site construction visualization planning and work package creation

Manufacture/ Fabrication

Procurement & Staging

• Comprehensive startup plans & procedures in place as soon as construction is complete • Operations team involved in design/procurement/construction/ commissioning

Composite technologies are being developed for use in many types of structures, including enhancement and refurbishment of existing structures. Composite structures manufactured by pultrusion methods can produce small bridge decking segments that weigh about 20% of traditional concrete decks. Larger composite structure systems are undergoing testing to better understand long-term performance and degradation modes. Scaling these technologies up to enable a wider expanse of applications is a challenge. The economics of alternate materials are being studied to understand the dynamics of manufacturing and placement costs, which are highly influenced by market volumes. Hybrid systems such as plastic fiber reinforced wood laminates have extended the yield and application of laminate structure by improving the consistency, stability, and capability of wood based products. Many other fiber reinforcement strategies are being investigated for enhancing the capabilities of traditional materials. Advances in protectants and coatings are extending the life of many material systems. Elimination of corrosive effects on surfaces and internal reinforcing for new and existing structure is the focus of new antiicing fluids and cleaning systems. Concrete is at once a blessing and a curse. It is cheap and available. However, it is difficult to transport and place, and the curing times slow progress. For concrete placement, efficient pumping, precision placement, and prefabricated, modular forming systems are having an impact. Concrete technologies

January 2003

2-22


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE continue to improve, but at a slow pace. The basic manufacturing processes for production of the elements of concrete (cement, aggregate, and additives) have followed basic improvement trends for cost, energy efficiency, and cycle time reduction. However, a highly fragmented and inherently small-company industrial base inhibits research into alternate materials, production, and delivery methods. While some parts of the industry are dominated by large, in some cases multinational corporations (i.e., the cement industry), the most significant barrier to innovation is the high capital cost for new facilities. It is often easier to justify additional capacity where the market is understood, than to add capacity for a new product. Innovative ways to apply technologies such as lightweight prefabricated aerated concrete structures and steel-free concrete decking systems are expanding the use of traditional materials, but not forcing the development of alternate materials to replace industry norms. Future directions for concrete are toward faster cure rates, easier placement, lighter weight, and higher strength for thinner layers. The need for progress in construction materials has not gone unnoticed. In January 2001, the American Concrete Institute published Vision 2030, which outlines numerous goals for improved concrete manufacturing and material performance.16 The Partnership for the Advancement of Infrastructure and Its Renewal (PAIR) initiative echoes this call with goals for new and improved materials such as fiberreinforced composites) for bridges.17 The Materials Technology Institute in its 1998 technology roadmap identifies a wide range of needs for improvement and fundamental research in materials relevant to chemical processing facilities.18 Key barriers identified by the Institute include: • Limited ability to model material interactions • Lack of fundamental understanding of materials • Limited understanding of degradation in new materials • Limits on manufacturability/size and shape • Lack of support/user participation in development of codes and standards for new materials • Inability to apply life-cycle costs on a consistent basis, incorporating the role of materials • Lack of reliable, cost-effective, on-line self-sensing methods • Lack of inexpensive strong, corrosion-resistant materials with low life cycle costs • Risk involved with using new materials. For manufacture and fabrication, the challenges are similar to other manufacturing challenges. Getting all of the information needed to fabricate the right components that will plug into the jobsite is a challenge. The error rates are usually high, many times due to disconnects in information and interpretation. Many construction sites operate a fabrication shop, which is set up for efficient manufacture of piping systems, electrical panels, and other components. The connection between the shop and the construction site may be close enough that communication issues can be handled with little difficulty. For offsite fabrication, the intent and all specifications must be clearly communicated in the design, and the cost and delivery must be based on satisfying these requirements. Fabrications are usually one-of-a-kind, so the efficiency may be low and the costs may be high, which makes automation and other manufacturing techniques of questionable applicability. A prime consideration in the manufacture/fabrication element of construction execution is make/buy decision-making and how the decision process and information outputs support and are supported by the de16

Vision 2030: A Vision for the U.S. Concrete Industry, American Concrete Institute, January 2001. Belle, Richard A., The PAIR Initiative: Repairing and Revitalizing our Nation’s Physical Infrastructure, Public Roads magazine, December 1999. www.tfhrc.gov. 18 Technology roadmap for Materials of Construction, Operation, and Maintenance in the CPI, Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Processing Industries, December 1998. 17

January 2003

2-23


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE sign and project management systems. Shipping, cost considerations (especially labor), retrofitting, contractual/labor issues, regulations, delivery schedule, and other aspects must be assessed in a constrained decision loop that yields the best decisions for each project. In many cases, the project managers and supervisors in the field make these decisions based on what is needed and what resources are available on hand. 2.3.2.2 Procurement & Staging The core challenge in procuring products, materials, equipment, and services for the active job site is to buy the right thing and get it where it needs to be, on time. Today’s typically centralized procurement structures often lack the in-depth knowledge and understanding to always “buy right,” although too often the definition of what is “right” isn’t determined until the resource is delivered to the construction site. An enormous proliferation of specifications adds to the problem. What’s needed is a procurement system that effectively, accurately, and definitively defines the requirements, iterates those requirements until everyone clearly understands and agrees with them, and then buys and delivers the goods and services on schedule. Source qualification/selection and getting contracts in place on time can have a significant bearing on project schedules. Delays in authorization to purchase long-lead-time items, or the unpleasant discovery that essential materials are back-ordered with no promise of delivery, can bring construction operations to a screeching halt while the payroll continues to burn. The multi-project sourcing strategies now used by many companies to save money often adds to the difficulty and requires increased sophistication for specifying, tracking, delivering, and managing product flow. In government projects, legislative directives frequently limit a project’s choice of suppliers. Industry forums can and should be used to educate legislators and remove the most frustrating obstacles. A good example of how this can work is the Design/Build Institute of America, which is working to change federal regulations to move away from low bid to performance-based criteria. Another example is the Alliance for Construction Excellence at Arizona State, which has been instrumental in spearheading legislative changes. The challenge in materials management is to optimize site management with a non-site-specific supply network. The key is to more closely integrate supply with schedule and move to pull-driven construction to supply the job site with procured materials and hardware at the proper time in the schedule to minimize on-site storage, staging, and movement. Some of the same principles of just-in-time that work well Airships Offer Solution to for manufacturers can and are being applied in construction. Lack of confidence (and poor visiLarge Transport Challenge bility) in the supply network hinders implementaTransport and delivery of massive structures and tion, however. One innovative solution is to stage equipment has always been a major challenge for large materials in non-fixed locations. In Mexico City, a capital construction projects, but help may be on the way. CargoLifter AG of Berlin is developing a 260major concrete supplier keeps loaded trucks on the meter-long, 65-meter-wide airship for transport of overroad on a continual basis so that concrete can be sized and heavy goods weighing up to 160 metric tons. delivered more quickly on demand. The CargoLifter CL 160 is a “flying crane” that will be Once materials are on site, the two major considerations are receiving inspection, and tracking and placing of materials. Preventing damage or degradation through preventive maintenance and deterring/preventing theft are often major considerations to keep materials build-ready, especially since many builders stockpile materials on site to avoid schedule snafus. Theft of tools and materials is a pernicious and costly problem due to high val-

January 2003

2-24

able to carry out expensive heavy transports faster, more simply, and more cost-efficiently without ever touching the ground and almost entirely independent from the local infrastructure. CargoLifter is working with 39 industrial companies, including sector giants such as General Electric Power, Unocal Corporation, industrial plant builders VoestAlpine and Ferrostaal AG, and SÜÜBA Cooperation, one of Germany’s largest construction companies, to develop and pilot this innovative concept.


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE ues, easy portability, the transient nature of the workforce, and the cost and difficulty of maintaining security on construction sites. Except at remote industrial locations, few builders devote resources to receiving inspection except in the case of special materials, since most construction materials are commodity items of consistently adequate quality. Given the huge volume of materials that go into a capital facility, it is much more efficient to rely on workers and supervisors to spot problems as individual items of material are drawn from the stock. Storing and staging materials on-site is usually a very ad-hoc process that relies on the people who need the material to know where it’s stacked and to grab an expediter or truck driver whenever something needs to be moved into position for use, using whatever transport resource is handy. This process works, and gets the job done, but is incredibly wasteful of time and labor. 2.3.2.3 Construction & Pre-Commissioning One of the major challenges in the construction and pre-commissioning phase is data gathering and sharing. Information regarding project status, personnel, workflow, and equipment/material location and status must be captured using processes and systems that keep all participants informed and on track doing what needs to be done. Currently, information sharing and collaboration are inefficient and require frequent face-to-face meetings with owners, contractors, subcontractors, engineers, laborers, and others. Site computing systems are not standardized or able to interact with other systems to provide more than limited information. Examples of information that is often not captured and communicated effectively include the impact of business decisions, lessons learned, as-built status, and site conditions. The expense, incompatibility, limitations, and complexity of current project delivery management systems often replaces one set of challenges with new ones that aren’t any easier to solve, just different. Despite advances in information technology that have revolutionized other sectors and other phases of the capital project life cycle, a successful project still boils down to a smart, experienced workforce poring over blueprints and applying their skills with the available materials to get the job done right, on time. The human element is always a huge factor in construction, and turnover (especially in crafts), training, union issues, and a shrinking skilled labor and construction management pool are all problems without easy solutions. In many cases, on-site training and certification of craft skills is required to ensure a ready workforce, consuming both time and resources during the construction phase. The debate between company-paid training and worker responsibility for training and certification is an old one. Since the workforce is usually temporary and wages have traditionally been relatively high, the unions have taken the lead (often in partnership with local contractors) in assuring worker training. However, with liability issues increasing, companies now focus on training for specific tasks and for regulatory compliance. Where this responsibility will reside in the future is an open question. In today’s increasingly mechanized world, an additional challenge is how to “de-skill” and “re-skill” the job site. As with the automotive sector in the 1960s-80s, construction is moving towards an environment where craftspeople operate machines instead of manual tools and may ultimately use processes that replace skilled craftspeople (e.g., pipe welders) with entirely automated processes. In areas where automation support has created opportunity – such as trenchless pipe laying – skill requirements have increased significantly. Management is not necessarily cognizant of workforce technology proficiency, and technology is not packaged to be usable on “dirty” construction sites. Managing the shift from today’s workforce – built on individual skill and pride in performance– to tomorrow’s activity-driven environment is a looming challenge. Perspectives and cultural issues also come into play among the project management, engineering personnel, and construction staffs. In most cases, construction workers are free-lancers who make a living with their portfolio of skills and certifications. They may have no organizational identity with the owner/operator, or even to the construction company that is doing the job. Their allegiance is often to the union hall, and their next job is next week a few miles up the road. Even so, the rugged individualism of

January 2003

2-25


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE the construction worker and the dedication to getting the job done is the key to project success. Longerterm alignments, methods to secure longer-term commitments from the companies to the workforce and vice versa, and shared rewards are needed to stabilize the availability of a trained and motivated workforce. Temporary systems and on-site waste also are areas where better methods are needed. A significant amount of time and expense is associated with the repeated fabrication/disassembly and management of temporary systems such as scaffolding, material handling/lifting and placement equipment, and fixtures/forms. Alternatives need to be developed to reduce or eliminate this large component of non-valueadded time and expense. Some progress is being made with new scaffolding systems and forms for placement of concrete that become part of the structure and add to the structural soundness. Waste in all forms is inherent with current construction operations. There has been little progress in adopting the lean practices that have transformed many sectors of manufacturing. There are great examples where automotive, aerospace, electronics, and other sectors have increased productivity and costeffectiveness by reducing cycle time, scrap, and rework. Another kind of waste – construction scrap – is becoming a bigger problem. The practice of “throw it all in a hole and cover it up” simply doesn’t work any more. Hazardous materials amplify this concern. Reducing and eliminating waste in every way is good business for the construction industry. Construction tools have benefited the most from technology evolution. Modern tractors, earth movers, cranes, lifts, drills, lathes, saws, nail guns, paint sprayers, surveying and alignment systems, and more have all but eliminated the kinds of breakdowns and glitches that have frustrated construction teams since the invention of the hammer. Rechargeable battery packs have eliminated miles of extension cords, and the greatly improved quality and increased form/fit standardization of prefabricated components (doors, windows, shingles, wiring, pipe, insulation, etc.) have greatly enhanced productivity by reducing downtime and rework. The challenge of pre-commissioning is to make sure that the structure or facility is ready for activation. A master checklist guides the testing of each individual element of the finished facility or structure to assure that the parts and the whole are ready to perform. This phase inevitably uncovers the need for rework to fix everything that wasn’t properly welded, attached, connected, sealed, painted, installed, aligned, grounded, etc. The real need in this area is not to improve the way pre-commissioning is done, but to prevent or catch these kinds of problems during the construction phase, so that the final walkthrough is just that – a walkthrough. This requires both better execution processes and tools, and a new view of quality control and sign-off than is currently in use. 2.3.2.4 Startup/Commissioning & Handover One of the critical elements of the transition from the construction phase to the operations phase is the availability of documentation that accurately depicts how the facility or building was constructed. Accurate capture of the as-built configuration and the ability to reconcile the as-built and as-designed configurations are pervasive deficiencies. In the worst cases, flaws that nobody caught in the design phase become obvious when the incoming operations staff finds valves and access panels that can’t be reached without a ladder, office areas without electrical sockets, “high bay” areas with only 8-foot ceilings, or an HVAC air intake next to the exhaust duct for a hazardous chemical processing unit. While good practices throughout the construction process minimize these kinds of issues, better systems that prevent problems on the front end – in design – are clearly needed. One of the strongest elements of this issue going forward is the use of bus-based plant or building control systems. These can eliminate a massive portion of not only the start-up/commissioning effort but contribute over the entire life-cycle to improving the maintain/repair/operate/retrofit (MROR) efforts. While industry sectors such as semiconductor manufacturing have developed excellent capabilities to “clone” existing facilities to expand capacity, every facility is unique. Therefore, the startup process is

January 2003

2-26


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE also unique. Facility designers typically write startup plans with input from operations staff, but these plans are often little more than a stepwise guide. This may be all that an experienced operations team needs to get a new facility up and running, but typically the team must endure a lengthy process of debugging and facility modification to achieve certified operational capability. The more complex the facility, the more time-consuming and costly the startup process. Training of the operations workforce is another area of critical need. Startup invariably brings together a small cadre of experienced engineers and operations staff with a large group of nominally trained and inexperienced new hires, all of whom must work together as a team to get the facility first up and running, and then running well. Documentation and training materials may initially consist of whatever is available from the various equipment vendors. Almost universally, the operations team must develop its own manuals and training materials – a process which can take years to create truly useful materials. Other challenges already mentioned in other elements of construction execution pertain to startup/commissioning and handover/turnover, such as change management, data capture, and information sharing. Performance testing and handover/turnover of as-built materials and systems (e.g., printed and electronic reports, drawings, and equipment guides) is an additional challenge that requires integration and accommodation of post-design data and information from systems delivered by multiple suppliers.

2.3.3 Life Cycle Support It is difficult to make broad generalizations about the state of the capital projects industry with regards to life-cycle support, since there are few attributes that apply in all cases. The nation’s capital facilities and structures span an incredibly broad range of functions, from roads and bridges to chemical processing Corrosion Sensor Cuts Costs, facilities and power plants, and vary in age from Improves Safety brand-new to tens of decades old. At this top level, In an effort to cut aircraft maintenance costs, the however, the CPTR workshop group made several Office of Naval Research (ONR) is funding develsalient observations: • Facility designers, driven by cost pressures based on an existing business model, often drive the design to minimize total installed cost (TIC) at the expense of total cost of ownership (TCO). Owners and operators must live with the consequences of TIC-based decisions for many years although the business model may change. • Limited data is available to help designers make the best decisions about life-cycle issues in the design phase. Given the long lifespan of the typical capital facility or structure, the timelines for feedback of operational experience are extremely long. Given the extreme disparity of available information (content, format, standards, etc.), it is difficult to extrapolate experience from one facility project to another at more than a gross level. • It is impossible to make meaningful predictions about technology advances and regulatory

January 2003

2-27

opment of a miniature sensor that detects corrosion before it becomes a problem. The sensor combines bimetallic thin-film microsensor technology developed by the Naval Air Warfare Center with microelectronics and RF communications technology developed by Systems & Process Engineering Corp. (SPEC) of Austin, Texas.

The sensor works like a battery. When two dissimilar metals are connected in a corrosive environment, a small current flows from one metal to the other. The current is proportional to the corrosivity of the environment. For instance, high moisture levels with salt or acid aerosols are very corrosive. SPEC’s electronics unit measures this current with a very sensitive, wide-range amplifier and converts the measurement into a digital number. A low-power microcomputer then captures and stores the readings. Potential applications of this technology include monitoring of pipelines and storage tanks, water incursion under roads, humidity in cleanrooms, water in engine or transformer oil, and structural integrity of civilian structures. – Cynthia Nishikawa, Office of Naval Research, nishikc@onr.navy.mil.


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

In ongoing research at NIST, VRML models provide a web-based 3-D view of the facility under construction and in operation, serving as a testbed for exploring the presentation of information relevant to the construction process.

changes that will have major life-cycle implications for the facility or structure downstream in the future. The fidelity of such predictions declines geometrically in proportion to the time scales involved. • “Legacy issues” will always exist. Since materials, standards, techniques, and technologies will always change over time, designers and owner/operators will always face significant challenges in addressing legacy complications in maintenance, upkeep, renovation, upgrade, refurbishment, and ultimate decommissioning and disposal of facilities and structures – including their supporting information systems. • Emerging technologies such as virtual reality modeling language (VRML) offer the potential to completely model a capital project design with mathematical accuracy as well as visual fidelity, and to link live design and status information to all elements of the simulation. Coupled with low-cost pervasive sensors networked to create a completely integrated and instrumented facility, “living models” offer the opportunity to radically reduce the cost and improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of facility operation, maintenance, repair, upgrades, refurbishments, renovation, and ultimate D&D. Table 2.3.3-1 on the following page provides a top-level characterization of the current state of industry regarding life-cycle actions, which is discussed in further detail below. The table is intended to provide a brief snapshot of the state of art and practice, which companies can use to assess their own level of capability. 2.3.3.1 Operation & Maintenance The current state of operation and maintenance (O&M) for capital facilities and structures spans a wide range. Modern U.S. chemical processing plants are models of precision and efficiency compared to most other kinds of product manufacturing facilities. This is in large part due to the rigorous safety, health, and process control needs of such facilities, and the continuous-flow nature of their operations. Where an outof-spec operation at an auto plant might result in a batch of parts being sent back for rework, a similar condition in a drug manufacturing plant results in a product that can only be thrown out. O&M problems also can lead to catastrophic events such as occurred at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Bhopal, India.

January 2003

2-28


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 2.3.3-1. State Map for Life-Cycle Support Sub-Element

Lagging Examples

State of Practice

Operation & Maintenance

• Calendar maintenance • Reactive maintenance/repair • Insufficient Ops personnel awareness of nonops issues that impact Ops • Minimize installed facility cost (no long-term LCC view) • No access to accurate as-built info • Manual processes • Chronic under-budgeting – “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” • Total reliance on O&M personnel experience and vendors’ technical expertise

• • • • • •

Upgrades & Refurbishment

• Lack of accurate and complete understanding – old engineering drawings and data on 5inch floppies, or no drawings at all; mixed standard & metric measurement systems • No update of drawings to as-built/as-modified configurations; PIDs don’t match reality • “Minimum change” mentality – limited or no operability reviews or LCC considerations • Risk uncertainty/aversion (no formal quantification/assessment) • Little rigor in planning = massive cost overruns (e.g., Boston “Big Dig”) • “Blow it up and haul it off” (buildings & structures) • “Hang a new shingle out front” (brownfield facilities) • “Fence it off” (offshore oil platforms, DoD WW II structures, DOE waste management areas) • “Let someone else deal with it” (gasoline storage tanks)

• 3-D models in oil/gas industries; less in other industries; typically no 3-D CAD/GIS in buildings – “cartoons” of electrical/mechanical systems • Models not carried through to O&M phase – real ops data not loaded back into models • Major renovations Hget similar rigor as new designs • Good (but not complete) consideration of both legacy issues and downstream impacts of renovation decisions

Decommissioning/ Disposal

January 2003

Scheduled & predictive maintenance Some reliability-centered maintenance Good automation at critical points Lowest-bidder mentality Inadequate budgeting for O&M Some access to as-built data – data-based systems • Different systems (people, too) not integrated • Some use of commercial products such as SAP to provide some integration • Strong reliance on O&M personnel experience and vendors’ technical expertise

• Good engineering planning for D&D, but strongest focus is on least cost with minimum compliance to letter of EPA requirements, Superfund/CERCLA/ RCRA laws • Recycle and refurb/resale of components and materials into existing market channels – concrete into roadbeds, structural steel, tires into asphalt • Incineration/landfill • Refurb instead of demolish/dispose • Encapsulation and long-term storage of hazardous materials

2-29

State of Art/ Best Practice • Reliability-centered maintenance (NASA, airlines, DoD) • O&M addressed on front end through “Best value” procurement emphasizing Total Cost of Ownership vs. Total Installed Cost approach (UK Deryk Eke; British Airport Authority • Interactive access to as-built data and reliability info (Boeing wearable maint. computer; cruise ships; Shell/Conoco offshore platforms) • Automated central facility control system (Smithsonian) • Maintenance integral to design and operations (Shell, Conoco, Smithsonian) • Proactive, smart maintenance (SAP implementation at Conoco UK plant) • Smart equipment, and smart personnel with advanced training • 3-D virtual “walk-through” visualization models for planning and designing airport expansions, offshore platforms, and other high-cost major renovations • Near real-time update of configuration baseline (Boeing 777 mfg ops) • Aggressive extraction, reclamation, and recycle of usable materials (e.g., metals, carpeting) • Best efforts at addressing both legacy issues and downstream impacts of renovation decisions

• Preplanned life-cycle actions provided for at major intervals and end of life • Aggressive recycle of useful materials • Proactive treatment of contaminated and hazardous materials – plasma arc incineration, vitrification, etc. • Innovative approaches to intractable problems (recycled rad metals to make rad storage containers) • Offshore platforms converted to reefs; ships converted to floating production facilities – Chevron & Exxon • Recycle of asphalt into new roadbeds • Recycled forest products – Weyerhaeuser • Systematic recycle/refurb/resale (web-based interchange) of eqpt & facilities; Fluor Exchange • Brownfield reuse – DOE K-25 Site


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The key to effective O&M is “condition assessment” – the ability to know how well a facility’s processes, equipment, and structures are doing at any point in time, so that necessary maintenance and repairs can be performed as required. Current maintenance practices employ three techniques: 1) Scheduled, where maintenance is done at predetermined intervals based on OEM specifications and engineering judgment. 2) Reactive, where maintenance is performed when a problem occurs or processes are observed to be out-of-spec. 3) Predictive, which uses a combination of engineering calculations and operational experience to determine what maintenance needs to be performed when, to keep processes operating in tune with minimal intervention. Predictive maintenance is a key element of the reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) concept. RCM is predicated upon understanding the reliability drivers of a system, process, facility, or item of equipment, as expressed in terms such as mean time between failure (MTBF); and upon having a solid understanding of the possible failure modes as gleaned using formal failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) techniques.

FIATECH LCDM Project Pursues Integrated Information Management for Plant Assets The goal of FIATECH’s Life Cycle Data Management (LCDM) Project is to define technology requirements and business drivers for achieving integrated plant asset information management, and to facilitate establishment of technologies and business processes for the full plant life cycle. Technical tasks include: • Re-using Engineering Information – Define the requirements and work processes to re-use design information in ongoing O&M. • Mapping the Plant Information Life Cycle – Outline and map data requirements and movement for facility lifecycle activities, with data generation sources by discipline, work process implications, and degree of data integrity. • Delivering Project Information to Operations – Outline what and how facility design-generated information adds value to O&M, and how this information (including legacy data) gets to and is implemented by O&M. • Application of Data Standards & Open Systems – Build awareness and gain broader industry participation in review and comment on evolving industry standards. Simplify the 'alphabet soup' of standards in order to facilitate industry IT development. Project participants will be the first to use the LCDM technology tools and supporting applications. The project is led by the FIATECH Owner/Operator Forum (OOF), a partnership of DuPont, Merck, Air Products, Dow, and BASF to encourage technology vendors to develop standard data models, open interfaces, and other mechanisms for information sharing and re-use.

The goal of all three practices is to maximize uptime at the lowest possible cost. None of the techniques alone can assure 100% continuous efficient operation, so most facilities apply all three depending on the nature of the operations. Structures are a different matter. Roads and bridges typically receive only haphazard inspection, and in many cases deteriorate to the point where users are at risk – or a failure occurs – before the structure receives any attention. Advances in automation, sensing, precision equipment, materials of construction, and process control have enabled great strides in reducing and simplifying maintenance requirements for all kinds of facilities, process, systems, and equipment. Disciplines such as design for reliability, design for maintainability, and design for repairability have greatly enhanced the ability of facility operators to minimize downtime and get operations back on line when problems occur. Despite these advances, significant challenges remain. Key needs include: • Improved ability to coordinate and integrate planned and unplanned changes over time • Improved, accurate feedback of operational data – reliability, performance, cost, etc. – to support technical and business decision processes such as risk assessment and mitigation. • Availability of accurate, comprehensive baseline data on equipment and systems so that maintenance strategies can be engineered on up-front for optimization of cost and performance.

January 2003

2-30


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Standardization of data and systems interfaces, and improved understanding of O&M costs and impacts, so that capital facility/structure designs can be engineered for operability and maintainability from the inception of the design phase. • Industry-wide uniform cost control structures (cost codes), so that experience and performance data can be widely shared and applied, with appropriate protection of competitive data, across different companies and sectors. • Greater consideration (based on accurate and comprehensive data) of O&M impacts in the design phase, where those costs can be influenced to the largest degree. “More and better knowledge and information” is a key theme in this area. The most pernicious problem, in the view of the workshop team, is that the decisions having the greatest effect on O&M are made by people who either lack a deep understanding of O&M issues, or who simply don’t have accurate information to make the best decisions about factors that ultimately drive O&M performance. Disciplines such as concurrent engineering, total quality management, and integrated product design are enabling the O&M community to “weigh in” earlier and with a greater voice in the design process, but in many cases they lack the hard data needed to truly optimize designs up front for O&M performance. This includes developing an understanding of why an enterprise is in business and the relationship of facility output to company profits. Moreover, having bad data is often worse than having none at all, since information is assumed accurate unless it has obvious flaws. Materials of construction are a fundamental source of maintenance and repair issues, since simple friction – wear and tear – along with structural stress and corrosion, are at the root of virtually every maintenance requirement. A 1998 report by the Materials Technology Institute outlines key barriers to higherperforming materials for chemical processing industries as: • Limited ability to model materials interactions • Lack of fundamental understanding of materials • Limited understanding of degradation in new materials • Limits on manufacturability/size and shape • Lack of support/user participation in development of codes and standards for new materials • Inability to apply life cycle costs on a consistent basis, incorporating the role of materials • Lack of reliable, cost-effective, on-line self-sensing methods • Lack of inexpensive, strong, corrosion-resistant material with low life-cycle costs • Risk involved with using new materials.19 Skills and training of O&M staff is another issue that must be addressed across industry. In the view of more than one member of the workshop team, “O&M staff could do a far better job if they understood the ‘why’ instead of simply the ‘what’. ” Mechanisms are needed not only to provide personnel with initial training, but also to enable them to better capture and share knowledge through operational experience. Another frustration is that in many areas the technology exists to make radical improvements in O&M, but that most owner/operators typically do not invest enough time and energy in understanding the value proposition of new technological solutions. “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” is a pervasive mindset, and the developers of beneficial new technologies often lack the in-depth operational insight and cost data to make a convincing business case, or to truly optimize their products to meet the needs of the end users. Lack of physically and heuristically valid operational process models/simulations is a major barrier here. 19

Technology Roadmap for Materials of Construction, Operation and Maintenance in the Chemical Process Industries, Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Process Industries, Inc., December 1998.

January 2003

2-31


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Interchangeability of capital and O&M costs is another perplexing issue due to the way major projects are financed. Given current business rules and practices, total installed cost (TIC) is the overriding driver of the design phase. This seems foolish considering that the cost of a typical facility (such as a building) represents only 10% or less of the total cost of ownership, but the nature of the financing for such projects dictates that TIC is a hard ceiling. The real challenge, then, is to optimize for O&M within the limits imposed by TIC. This requires that the owner/operator be a true “full partner” with the design/engineering agent from project inception. Cost IS the #1 concern relative to O&M in every industry, a theme that pervades all studies on the subject. A 1999 report by the NSTC’s Subcommittee on Construction and Building calls for 50% reduction in O&M costs across the industry20, and the TIC vs. TOC paradigm must change if that goal is ever to be reached. 2.3.3.2 Upgrades & Refurbishment Although O&M is the primary driver of life-cycle costs, decisions about upgrading and refurbishing capital facilities and structures are even more problematic. When is it the time to stop repairing something, and replace it? What actions can be taken to extend life before that approach becomes costprohibitive? If it is replaced with something different, will it work as advertised? How will that change affect the rest of the facility? What solutions are consistent with the overall facility life expectancy? Functionality, cost, and regulatory compliance are of course the overriding driver in making these kinds of decisions. The current industry rule of thumb is that maintenance and upgrades are budgeted at about 2% to 4% of current replacement value. Upgrade and refurbishment is typically a microcosm of the entire EPC cycle, but pose a different set of challenges than a greenfield project. The challenge is to execute and coordinate projects within the context and constraints of the existing facility or structure. Bridges and roads are a particularly glaring example of this difference. The nature of the facility drives the decision process. Buildings, roads, bridges, and similar structures can be operated for decades with only the occasional refurbishing, replumbing, rewiring, repainting or repaving to remain serviceable and compliant with changing codes. These kinds of costs are predictable, with the major variable being monetary inflation over time – which is not to say that this is easily addressed, considering the current state of the nation’s aging highways and bridges. Historical preservation and environmental issues can be a significant issue, as in the case of historical buildings where renovations must duplicate or emulate techniques and materials no longer in use. Upgrading and refurbishing of processing facilities (refineries, chemical plants, power plants, and other kinds of manufacturing facilities) is complex because of the need to assure a continuously competitive bottom line. Costs must be recoverable within a reasonable timeframe, in a manner that can be absorbed by pricing. The renovations must be done in a way that minimizes disruption of existing operations and systems, so as to ensure continuity of operations and prevent any health and safety impacts to the workforce. Major challenges in this domain include: • Limited accuracy and completeness of configuration documentation vs. as-built reality, particularly in older facilities that have undergone prior renovation and repair. • Limited or no availability of the original supporting design decision data (e.g., engineering analyses) for older facilities/structures. • Limited availability and useability of original design data, which requires re-creation.

20

Snell, Jack E. and Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Interagency Program for Technical Advancement in Construction and Building, National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Construction and Building, 1999.

January 2003

2-32


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Compliance with changing codes, and integration of upgrades in accordance with current codes/standards in facilities originally built to different codes/standards. • Integration of new and old technologies in building infrastructure and process systems (HVAC, pumps, valves, piping, insulation, etc.), particularly where legacy parts and materials are no longer available • Dealing with outdated and hazardous materials such as wiring, insulation (i.e., asbestos), lead paints, and PCBs. • Incrementally updating the facility/structure baseline to keep current with changes. • Lack of a systematic methodology (e.g., business and engineering models) with which to make the best decisions about renovations and upgrades, so as to mitigate risk, reduce cost uncertainty, and prevent scope creep. This area also faces the same kinds of challenges as the O&M area as described in Section 5.1.2 above, including: • Availability of operational data to support technical and business decision processes. • Standardization of data and information about materials, equipment, and systems, with sufficient technical detail on physical properties to support engineering processes. • Industry-wide uniform cost control structures (cost codes), so that experience can be shared across companies and sectors. • Greater consideration of downstream upgrade and refurbishment requirements in the original design phase, where the costs and complexity of such life-cycle actions can be influenced to the largest degree. Reconciliation of as-built drawings to support renovations is a pervasive problem, but new technologies are making this problem easier to address. 3-D laser scanning is providing an easy and precise way to capture as-built configurations for facilities and structures where the original design documentation is missing, incomplete, or inaccurate. A recent project by Shell Oil Co. used 3-D scanning and modeling tools to support renovation of its offshore platform at Forcados, Nigeria (Figure 2.3.3.2-1). Shell had the 2-D AutoCAD drawings originally used to construct the platform, but since these drawings were inadequate for the task, the project required scanning of the entire platform and creation of a 3-D model. The goal was to enable Shell to replace a large portion of piping, and automate the associated operational work processes. This required a comprehensive 3-D model of the platform, including the piping and the flanges, from which the geometries could be exported to various design programs to create new drawings. The project was completed in 23 days, and hailed by Shell as “a huge success.”21 While current 3-D scanning technology provides valuable capabilities, significant advances are required to support a broader range of needs for the capital projects industry FIATECH’s recently launched 3-D Laser 21

Figure 2.3.3.2-1. Shell Oil Company applied 3-D laser scanning technology to accurately capture the as-built configuration of its offshore platform at Forcados, Nigeria to support a major renovation of the facility.

www.ageo.co.uk/laser_scanning/.

January 2003

2-33


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Scanning project is focusing directly on these needs. The goal of the project is to improve the ability to capture 3-D digital conditions of construction projects and to integrate information into life-cycle data; and to identify areas where the use of laser distance and ranging (LADAR) would reduce costs and improve returns on investment for contractors and owners. Specific capabilities to be developed include: • Rapid scene capture • Accurate 3-D surface models • Volume/area calculation • Owner/contractor derived information. 2.3.3.3 Decommissioning/Disposal For most of our nation’s history, “capital projects” were limited to relatively simple projects such as roads, bridges, and buildings – brick and mortar, iron and steel. The discovery of electricity and the invention of the internal combustion engine and the resulting explosion of technology since the turn of the 20th century has given rise to a massive national infrastructure and industrial base for power generation and distribution, manufacturing of complex chemical products, the automotive industry, the electronics industry, and the aerospace industry. Until recently, little consideration was given to any kind of life-cycle concerns. The end of the Cold War brought home the implications of life-cycle issues in staggering fashion. The massive investment in production of nuclear weapons through the 1970s has left the nation with a legacy that no one could have imagined at the time those facilities were being built. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) launched an aggressive effort to attack environmental remediation (ER) and decontamination and decommissioning challenges in the 1980s, but these initiatives ran into a buzz-saw of technical, legal, liability, and cost issues. Estimates for cleanup of the DOE facilities at the Hanford Site in Washington State range as high as $3 trillion, as one example. Although small-scale efforts at DOE facilities in Fernald, OH and Oak Ridge, TN have been successful, attempts at large-scale response have failed. The site managing contractors and the ER industry are unwilling to accept the risks demanded by the government, and the government cannot afford the financial guarantees needed to accomplish projects where the technologies are not certain to perform as desired. The bottom line is that facilities must be designed, built, operated, and maintained based on a clear understanding of, and accommodation of, the entire life cycle. In the context of D&D, and in the words of the CPTR workshop participants, every capital project must “begin with the end in mind.”22 Today, there are two overarching challenges in this area: 1) Designing new facilities to accommodate ultimate D&D at their end of life 2) Safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively accomplishing D&D of existing facilities that are now at or near the end of their design lives. In undertaking a D&D project, the first and biggest problem is understanding and scoping what must be dealt with. What materials can be reclaimed and recycled? What hazardous materials are involved, where are they, to what extent, and in what condition? What kinds of surprises are likely or possible given what is known about the history of the facility, through either records or anecdotal evidence? What potential exists for unintended release of hazardous and toxic substances to air and water as a facility is dismantled or demolished? This is not an easy challenge to solve. DOE spent billions in the 1980s and ‘90s in simply assessing and characterizing ER/D&D issues at its facilities across the country. Although most industries do not have to deal with the kinds of problems associated with radioactive materials, substances such as heavy metals, 22

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, p. 95, Simon & Schuster, NY 1989.

January 2003

2-34


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE asbestos, PCBs, and other hazardous materials and chemicals present challenges of their own in undertaking D&D efforts. While many technologies have been developed to support identification, characterization, and remediation of such hazards, the fact remains that cost and risk escalate dramatically when any type of toxic/hazardous material is involved. Given this context, the workshop team identified several key issues that must be addressed in this area. As a consensus, the industry lacks: • Comprehensive and highly standardized tools and methods for assessing as-is conditions and characterizing hazards and potential problems. • Accurate and useable business models for D&D planning that can be shared across companies and sectors, and which can be updated based on shared experience across industry, to support both execution of D&D projects and planning for D&D in the design phase. • Tools for assessing the condition and suitability of salvageable materials. • Testing and monitoring technology for assessment and tracking during the D&D process. • A comprehensive, efficient, and cost-effective supply network for handling 100% of all D&D output – not just the useful salvage/recycle materials – including provision for safe interstate transport and national facilities for processing and disposal of hazardous materials. • The industry-wide business imperative to account for D&D up front, to include budgeting for decontamination, decommissioning, salvage, and disposal. • Business models to support understanding of recycle/reuse options, including alternative uses. • Technologies for separation and recycle of D&D’d materials – concrete, asphalt, metals and alloys, wood, plastics, glass – and cost-effective transformation into new and useful materials. • Good operational models and practices for accomplishing complex D&D projects, so as to reduce hazards to workers, the public, and the environment.

2.3.4 Project Management The project management function crosscuts all activities of the capital project industry, providing coordination and communication to assure the proper execution of all activities and operations. While all companies in this industry strive to apply accepted principles of good management, and tools such as Primavera are in widespread use, there is no widely accepted “system” for managing projects. Hundreds of companies apply thousands of similar but different tools and techniques that reflect their own corporate management culture augmented by different commercial and custom-built tools, applications, systems, and methodologies. Each company’s system is the result of trial-and-error evolution over many years, or even decades. While most large firms have well-developed systems that provide acceptable functionality for their own business needs, these systems often break down when business requirements change or multiple companies integrate teams to pursue and conduct specific joint-interest projects. Table 2.3.4-1 provides a top-level characterization of the current state of industry regarding project management, which is discussed in further detail below. The table is intended to provide a brief snapshot of the state of art and practice, which companies can use to assess their own level of capability.

January 2003

2-35


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 2.3.4-1. State Map for Project Management Sub-Element

Lagging Examples

Project Coordination & Control

• Oil refinery projects that are constantly overrunning cost and schedule targets • Management team continually “surprised” by lack of progress or missed milestones

Scope Management

• Scope is not managed but rather left entirely to operators and maintenance to determine

Quality Management

• Too often have a constant battle to produce quality results • Ad-hoc awareness of detailed requirements • “Avoidance” mentality with frequent fits and starts

Licensing & Regulatory

State of Practice

• Disney’s time-tagged DB of projects, simulation, visualization of projects, used on new California park • Caterpillar—world-wide logistics, predictive maintenance based on communications & GPS in machinery • Multiple organizations operating from same database

• SAP is well-known product, with origination and perceived strengths in financial area • Hard to discern best practitioners, since winning a contract can be due to multiple causes (lower margins, better management, etc.) • Web-based procurement (Bechtel) • Integrated project management with scheduling and financial systems • Baxter doing excellent work re environmental issues, not only continually cutting emissions beyond the regulations but also responding to local interests

Financial/ Business Management

• Some projects appear to be totally out of control

• Construction side of the house is formulating proposed budgets partially in the blind—not knowing source restrictions • Still some ignorance in organization regarding why projects are done. Not sufficient focus on the business case

Safety, Health & Environment

• Choosing contractors without proven safety record

• Project safety engineer knows regulations etc. and has safety incentive programs but lacks human psychology skills – how to make people work safe. • Safety is a top priority finally—it is under control. Also, a great deal of focus on health issues. • Environmental issues normally handled by regulatory dept..

January 2003

State of Art/Best Practice

• Effective project info flow requires a large amount of communication & monitoring by project manager or project controls • Current communications: lots of phone calls, Faxes, emails, intranet, 2-way radio. • Snafus identified with little to no “panic time” available. • Mostly manual monitoring going on • Monitored info, updates / revision documents take too long to get back to the appropriate people • Usually a battle between project management and O&M to get initial scope initially and then restrict changes • Slow turnaround for change orders • Impacts of change orders may not always be reviewed by appropriate personnel • No TQM review • Everything is manual, from data input through analysis • Conflicting trade offs between cost & quality. However, designs are generally workable & final quality is not poor. • Governing documents are read and reread • Applications for permits etc. are done one by one, manually • Lack of procedure standardization • Requires environmental departments within owner organization to keep up with changing regulations

2-36

• Value engineering techniques, practiced by CITGO • Project Management Institute has knowledge base with good examples of best practices for all types of industry

• Sohio (now BP) good at meeting all regulations in Alaska work. Very concerned about quality; didn’t consider failure or slip-ups as an option. • Online submission and review of permits • Streamlining of regulations • Electronic records of compliance • Satellite tracking of waste shipments


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 2.3.4.1 Project Coordination & Control Project coordination and control are essentially human functions – the people in the trailer at the construction site who assure that everything that needs to be done is done; that everything required it is available when needed; and that everyone involved in the project has all the timely information they need. A problem for project coordinators is that senior managers focus first on cost and schedule compliance, because those factors determine whether the organization earns a bonus for performance or pays a penalty for nonperformance. Few benchmarks exist to baseline standards of excellence in project coordination, although most companies think they do a good job of it. What is true is that far too many projects overrun their cost and schedule targets. The bigger and more complex the project, the larger and more inevitable the problems will be. A big challenge of project coordination is that, with multiple organizations and parties involved, it is difficult to synchronize all the activities and communication among different functions and groups. This leads to difficulty making good decisions, especially when multiple organizations are involved with their different organizational cultures and languages, even when all parties are earnestly working for the best result. In current practice, communication is via phone calls, faxes, emails, intranet, 2-way radio, and hollering out the window. Problems are typically identified late, with little time left to solve them, which forces delays and logjams of people and materials. Automated tools for integrated management of capital projects are emerging. Applications such as Constructware (Figure 2.3.4.1-2), ProjectNet, and ProjectCenter connect participants to a centralized database of project data and information tools to improve communication and collaboration. Because the project database is continuously updated, architects, engineers, and subcontractors can immediately access current information to track progress and support real-time decision-making and analysis. There are many examples of large and complex projects that are well coordinated. As a leading-edge example, construction of Disney’s new California Adventure land was managed with a high-tech combination of time-tagged simulation and visualization. Sometimes the contracting process complicates the incentive issues and makes project Figure 2.3.4.1-2. With applications such as Constructware, we are now seeing the first generation of true project coordination even more difficult, especially management systems for the construction industry. if a contractor “lowballs” its bid with the expectation of making money on later change orders. This is a practice unlikely to change until the industry adopts a policy of competing bids for change orders. One of the major challenges of the industry is the recognition that changing out contractors after the project is underway is costly and usually leads to delays, which makes underbidding a successful, although unseemly, business practice. For this reason, organizations like to work with contractors that they can trust. There are also technical challenges. Locally developed or proprietary project coordination and control systems may simply systematize bad practice, and certainly increase difficulty in working in complex teaming environments. The capital projects industry in general is risk-averse about new practices and technologies, and newer technologies adopted by large organizations may not be within the reach of

January 2003

37


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE smaller suppliers. Provision of compatible technology-based systems to second- and third-tier suppliers is a major concern for many firms.

Project Management You Can Only Imagineer: Disney Does It Different

Project control requires realistic assessment of Walt Disney Imagineers operate under the same constraints as any design and construction company – bringproject status in real or near-real time, and the ing in a project at cost and on time, carefully scheduling ability to integrate information from a variety of the arrival and assembly of parts. But at Disney, a combisources and systems. Whether due to lack of nation of high-tech tools has enabled simulation of various knowledge about technology or to the general options and rapid production of the chosen design. conservatism of the industry, available technolUsing virtual reality (VR) techniques, a 3-D version of the ogy is still not fully utilized, especially for proCalifornia Adventure land was created and projected onto large video screens. Disney staff could “fly” around and viding real-time information. Required inforexperience the park from different perspectives to finely mation is usually gathered manually, and the tune the specifications and create the optimal experience time to get updates and revisions to all affected for Disney visitors. people is often excessive. Project control data is Once the park was designed, the 3-D model was linked always collected on large projects, but analysis with the project schedule to create a 4-D visualization of and use of that data for progress assessment is project plans. As time runs by, different project phases are highlighted in different colors. The VR simulation highlights frequently lacking. Primavera and similar softany holes or conflicts in scheduled activities at a time ware tools have gained strong acceptance in when they are still easily fixed. scheduling and progress reporting for largeThis rich technology environment greatly enhanced comscale projects, but are only as effective as the munication – with Imagineering staff, construction manpeople who use them. A promising approach to agement, general contractors, and even via “snapshots” to using project control data to manage project subcontractors. Every participant could see his part and progress and costs has been developed by Time how and when it fit into the overall project plan. Industrial, Inc. The Time Industrial system pro– Villano, Matt, Building on IT, CIO Magazine, 15 June 2001; www.cio.com/archive/061501/building_sidebar_2_content.html vides a secure, application-neutral, internet?printver based service to collect labor, equipment and material data real-time at the job site to feed the different project management, payroll, or accounting systems used by all project stakeholders. In another promising development, Carnegie Mellon University has developed a system concept for a Construction Information and Management System (CIAMS) that automates the ad-hoc reconciliation of the as-built design to the design intent. This system networks the designer, construction management team, and contractors, and uses in-process survey information to provide continuously current visibility into configuration control. Since CIAMS is aware of the design and “as-is” status of the construction site, it can generate reports to keep project management aware of construction status. In addition to traditional surveys, sensors and robots could deliver survey data directly to CIAMS. Future work is planned to prototype a deployable automated assessment sensory system to collect survey points as needed.23 2.3.4.2 Scope Management Scope management is a challenge with any type of project, and the potential cost of “scope creep” in a capital project can be huge. Several factors contribute to this issue. The completeness of the design, or lack thereof, can contribute to the proliferation of field change orders. Many companies use “value engineering” analysis techniques to set the correct scope, determine required functions, reduce undesirable functions, and in general reduce the cost-to-worth ratio of the facility. A weakness of even the best systems, where good design practice based on clear requirements and a solid business case is the norm, is that field changes tend to shortcut appropriate review processes. Expediency and “damage control” are far too often the drivers of change.

23

Latimer, T. DeWitt IV and Ogbemi Hammond et al., Automatic Detection of Significant Variation from Designed Intent Utilizing Survey Data, Carnegie Mellon University, 2001. www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~dl4s/professional/ISARC2000/.

January 2003

38


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The first requirement is to r e c o g n i z e scope changes, since they often creep in as seemingly inconsequential modifications requested by the construction team to make the design workable, or as a request from downstream operations team to improve their processes, or as a customer request for aesthetic enhancements. Such changes may not be “improvements” when viewed in light of the overall business objectives, and small changes early in the project may have a domino effect with large impact on the ultimate cost and performance of the facility.

Caspian Pipeline Project Underscores 21st Century Challenges and Opportunities One of the biggest capital projects ever undertaken, the recently completed Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) project cost over $2.5 billion, stretches over 900 miles, moves 550,000 barrels of oil a day, and is designed to move 1.5M barrels a day with expansions and upgrades. The pipeline crosses 768 roads, railways, canals, ravines, and major rivers. The CPC designed and built a system that could move oil from the Tengiz field in Kazakhstan, 1000 miles from open ocean, to the sea terminal in Novorossiysk, Russia. As if the terrain and geography were not challenge enough, the teams had to deal with numerous changes in political and legal boundaries from the project’s inception in 1993.

In current practice, there is often a struggle between project management and operations in defining the initial scope, and a mentality of restricting changes to only those deemed necessary. A key challenge is getting full agreement on scope (through excellent and unambiguous design and good communications) from all stakeholders early in the project, and the fortitude to say “no” to scope changes that don’t pass the test of good judgment.

Everything about CPC is big, not just the distance and price tag. Chevron worked with a wide range of contractors, from archaeologists to experts trained in removing unexploded munitions left from WWII. It includes partners representing 10 companies from six countries and three governments. The project was split into five groups that included major contractor roles for Fluor Daniel and Siemens. Approximately 6000 workers were spread across the 900 miles simultaneously, working at up to 50 different locations.

There are deficiencies that technology can solve. There can be legitimate business reasons to pursue scope changes even if a project has achieved dewww.chevron.com/about/chevronnow/2000/nov_dec/caspian_f sign freeze. For example, the market for a product eature1.shtml may change dramatically during construction, leading to a necessity to upsize or downsize. With current technology, there is no easy way to gather sufficient information to understand and assess a proposed scope change and its financial and functional implications to the design, construction, and operations phases. However, technology certainly can enhance communication and coordination of scope/design changes. The process of turning a recognized need for a change, into a change order that is supported by the necessary engineering, staff, and materials, is not usually well coordinated. Delays and errors are common. A system is needed for scope management that includes greatly improved efficiency and control of the change process. 2.3.4.3 Quality Management Everyone has probably heard the clichés of quality: “Fast, cheap, good – pick two!” and, “Do you want that now, or do you want it right?” While there are inherent conflicts between quality and other drivers of performance, it would be unfair to say that cost and schedule concerns always force quality compromises. It is, however, imperative that this be recognized as an opportunity to assure that good decision processes are applied to delight the customer and achieve the best overall results. The industry needs standard definitions of quality, because such definitions currently differ in virtually every company, and certainly across different members of the industry (e.g., between A&E firms and owner/operators). The same standards are often applied differently in different projects, or within a single project. Conversely, the same nominal quality may be produced by different standards-compliant subsystems, but the customer may push for use of a certain system that increases the cost of the project. Thus, an important part of achieving quality is to get agreement on what “quality” means in this situation, and how it will be measured. There is much debate throughout the industry regarding the value of efforts toward compliance with various quality standards (to the point of diminishing returns, some think). However, there is common agreement that in current practice, designs are generally workable and the resulting final

January 2003

39


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE quality is not poor. Indeed, while it is tempting to dwell on the problems, it should be acknowledged that many (or even most) construction projects are successful partnerships between a customer and a team of suppliers all working diligently for success. One of the biggest cost and technology issues is getting the right records in place to document quality. Total Quality Management (TQM) and similar disciplines require significant investments, and still require manual efforts to gather data, check processes and products, and create required documents. Automated tools are needed to assist in evaluating the risks, costs, and consequences of quality failures. The migration of quality tools and technologies to lower-tier subcontractors also needs attention. The balance of the necessity for quality programs with the cost and rigor of their execution must stay in the fore, and mechanisms for “unconscious (yet documented) excellence” must be pursued. Examples of best practices and extreme measures in quality can certainly be found in the nuclear power and petroleum industries. Rigor in construction of nuclear plants is essential for our collective well-being, but it certainly can be driven to extremes. The quality problems with the Tennessee Valley Authority power plants are well documented. In one controversial decision, many millions of dollars worth of flawless welds were cut out because the welders’ certifications had expired. On the other side of the ledger, Sohio (now BP) in Alaska had good success by adopting a culture that simply didn’t accept the idea of quality failures or slip-ups as an option. 2.3.4.4 Licensing & Regulatory Regulations are among the greatest hurdles for the capital projects industry. On large projects with long timelines, the impact is important and the delays are troublesome. On projects where quick turnaround is imperative, regulatory delays can define the difference between success and failure. The regulations come from everywhere. State, local, and federal regulations must all be complied with, and sometimes they are in conflict. Every state has different licensing requirements, and the responsiveness and turnaround Clean Harbors Uses IT to Track times at all levels of various regulatory bodies are and Document Hazardous notoriously slow and prone to roadblocks. This is largely due to a pervasive mentality that the objecMaterials tive of these agencies is not to facilitate success, but Massachusetts-based Clean Harbors Inc., one of the to avoid risks. contractors cleaning up areas of New York in the wake Heeding the frustrating process of obtaining building permits, the San Jose-based Joint Venture organization unified disparate building codes throughout Silicon Valley and moved the application process online. Instead of having contractors appear at city hall to submit paperwork and wait for weeks to get a response, the streamlined process delivers permits overnight. Additional efforts under way include an application that would enable city planners to approve CAD-based blueprints online.24 Regulatory compliance permitting for a project is usually a manual process with voluminous stacks of paper. Procedures are not standard, so government documents are read and reread, and the dissimilar tools required by different programs are hard to deal with. Much of the approval process is humandependent, which leads to variations in interpretations. Large organizations will have environmental 24

of the World Trade Center destruction and anthrax incidents, uses information technology to efficiently manage the complex paper trail needed for dealing with hazardous materials. Since waste materials from the NBC studios cleanup might be anthrax-tainted, required documentation for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation is scanned into the company’s CHOICE system for electronic storage and retrieval on demand. The CHOICE system allows some DOT documents to be filled out on-line, and provides a mechanism to get quotes for transportation of waste. The system provides password-protected customer access to shipping documents, plus information on hazardous materials, including an expanded section on anthrax. Movement of 650 company trucks hauling waste to a dozen disposal sites is tracked at company headquarters in real time with a satellite tracking system. – Brewin, Bob, “Clean Harbors to use IT in tracking hazardous materials”, ComputerWorld, 8 Nov 2001, www.computerworld.com/itresources/rcstory/0,4167,STO654 72_KEY241,00.html

Villano, Matt. “Permit Hermits”, CIO Magazine, June 15, 2001. www.cio.com/archive/061501/building_sidebar_1.html.

January 2003

40


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE departments dedicated to keeping up with the regulations (such as CERCLA, RCRA, NPDES, SARA, and host of EPA and OSHA requirements), but for smaller operations, all the licensing and regulations present an overwhelming challenge. Tracking and knowledge-based compliance systems are emerging. For example, Sandia National Laboratory has developed a suite of knowledge-based tools that guide the user through the understanding of regulations and the permitting process. Similarly, the DOE’s Oak Ridge Operations Office is making use of environmental management systems that assure that every step of construction and dismantlement processes is executed in compliance. 2.3.4.5 Financial/Business Management Financial and business management practices across industry vary from little control to excellent decision processes and practices. For capital projects, the business management process starts early – with the appropriation of funds and selection of projects. Some owner/operators set aside a capital budget each year, and the organizations within the company compete for the funding. This often leads to political power taking precedence over need. Other organizations establish priorities and allocate funding based on comprehensive business case studies. The most difficult part of these studies is the long lead time, which demands prediction of uncertain economic directions. On the construction side, estimating is often more art than science, although estimating systems have made a lot of difference in the way estimates are created. For well-defined projects that closely match standard practices, good estimates and good business management practices can be put in place fairly quickly and very early in the process. However, early estimates are often not far from educated guesses with lots of contingency built in – both formally and informally. In current practice, it is often difficult to get access to and understand even your own company’s cost basis. In many organizations that do not require strong focus on the business case, there is often ignorance as to why projects are being done. There is a disconnect between most financial management systems and the way most companies actually operate. Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems have helped reduce this disconnect, although failures in implementation far outnumber the success stories at the current stage of ERP evolution. Knowledge systems with tradeoff capability can have tremendous impact, but there are few systems that support true knowledge-based decision making for capital projects. Use of technology to support business management is increasing, but still has a long way to go. One EPC industry leader, Bechtel Corp., has produced a number of web-based systems to upgrade its procurement operations. BPS (Bechtel Procurement System) is an intranet portal where project managers can submit labor and material bids and generate purchase orders. The system is expected to greatly reduce Bechtel’s $3 million annual FedEx shipping bill. Another example is Pasadena, CA-based Parsons Corp., a global engineering and construction company. Their new P-Works, a web-enabled project control system, can access scheduling and financial project information from anywhere.25 Cost tracking and control have improved greatly with the advent of computerized cost collection and earned-value management systems, but timeliness remains an issue. Far too often, managers don’t find out that they are overrun until the problem is several weeks old, when it’s too late to do anything but eat the hit or take the difference out of another area in the form of a cutback. Companies such as Time Industrial are tackling this challenge with internet-based systems that enable tracking of project labor, equipment and material costs in real time for owners, contractors and subcontractors. Large-scale financial management presents huge opportunities for improvement if fundamental changes can be made in the way that capital projects are financed. On many long-term projects, huge sums of money are consumed by cost escalation over time, loan or bond financing costs, contingencies and guarantees, float, administrative load, and similar factors. The only organizations that benefit from this state of affairs are the financial and legal institutions involved. No “system” is going to fix the current methods. 25

Villano, Matt. “Building on IT,” CIO Magazine, 15 June 2001. www.cio.com/archive/061501/building.html.

January 2003

41


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE New methods are needed. By reducing the time required to move from design to completion, by reducing design and construction costs, by reducing and capping cost risk, and by providing new avenues for selffinancing using shared investment/reward models, tremendous savings can be realized. 2.3.4.6 Safety, Health & Environment All sectors of U.S. industry have made tremendous strides over the past 20 years in improving their health, safety, and environmental (HSE) performance. This has been driven by increasingly stringent government regulations, by the understanding that problems in these areas lead to work stoppages and litigation, and by the recognition that well-trained personnel executing properly planned and monitored work processes drastically reduce potential for mishaps. HSE is now a fundamental element of engineering discipline, helping assure that facilities are designed from inception to address issues such as containment and handling of hazardous materials, safety margins for high-temperature/pressure/voltage processes and equipment, structural loading, and management of all waste streams. Better safety systems (i.e., protective gear), increased use of modular and prefabricated components, and improved quality of tools, equipment, and materials are significantly reducing the occurrence and magnitude of failures and accidents. The HSE functions in construction may be among the least amenable to technology solutions – the core issues here are largely “people issues.” As one industry veteran puts it, two things cause incidents: ignorance and speed. 50% Drop in Injuries is The HSE engineers can design a perfect facility or structure, but cannot account for the variables of the individuals who will “Just the Beginning” actually do the construction. Construction is a tough business A culture change is taking place at Johns with a mindset of rugged independence and a less than comManville Corporation, the world's largest manufacturer of commercial roofing sysplete respect for rules and regulations. These factors make it tems and a premier producer of fiberglass difficult to establish HSE programs that are credible with both insulation products. "We're in the first management and the workforce and that are executed by all. phase of a basic change in the way we approach worker safety," said Bob Lupe, The common practice of HSE incentives can be argued in two safety manager for the multinational corways. Clearly, people do respond to tangible reward for correct poration. “Our new drive to eliminate injupractice, but such incentives can actually work against the goal ries began a year ago, and since then by causing a reluctance to report incidents. A more effective we've seen a 50 percent reduction in lost workday and restricted duty cases.” strategy is to personalize the result of good (as well as bad) HSE practice. Specific recognition to employees whose good Lupe attributes the improvements not to radical new technologies and manufacpractice directly resulted in the avoidance of an incident, or the turing processes, but rather to improved appropriate use of an example where the failure to exercise communication and worker involvement. good practice resulted in an incident, can have impact. The visibility of real commitment and concern from top management, along with willingness to spend the necessary money to communicate and motivate proper behavior and assure a healthy work environment, is the most effective tool for influencing the workforce.

Although environmental issues are generally thought of in terms of regulatory compliance concerns, a visible management commitment to establish processes and use products that are environmentally benign is much effective in influencing workforce culture than simply exhorting compliance to rules and regulations. Environmental consciousness in the workplace, modeled by the leaders of the organization, can have a meaningful impact on the work environment and the community outside the faculty. An example of good practice comes from Baxter International. Baxter’s manufacturing operations are not large emitters of pollutants and are well within EPA guidelines, but strive to keep improving anyway. Baxter has reduced emissions by 90% since 1990, and plans to reduce by another 30% by 2005. 26

26

Goodman, Ann, “Healthy, Wealthy and Wise,” Delta Sky Magazine, October 2001, p.116.

January 2003

42


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

3.0 ONGOING INITIATIVES The capital projects industry is one of the nation’s largest and most widely dispersed sectors. The industry involves hundreds of agencies between the federal and local levels, industry consortia and professional organizations, and thousands of companies ranging from Fortune 100 corporations to single-member small businesses in the construction trades. The federal investment for technology development that is directly related to the goals identified in the FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Roadmap is notable. According to the FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Information System, there are currently more than 900 active projects being funded by federal agencies, representing a collective investment of over $800 million. Evaluation of projects funded within the past 3 years indicates a federal investment of well over $1.8 billion. This section presents a brief overview of some of the major organizations who collectively provide leadership and guidance across the industry.

3.1 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST)

The FIATECH Database: A Powerful Resource for Leveraging and Aligning R&D Investments The FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Information System is a web-based information resource launched in the summer of 2001. The system integrates data about ongoing initiatives from the many federal and industrial organizations addressing industry’s technology challenges. By bringing a wealth of highly fragmented data into one system, the system enables a clear view of current R&D activities. This enables all R&D stakeholders and users to make better strategic decisions on R&D direction and investments. The initial implementation focuses on federally funded R&D. Future data will include activities from industry, best practices and other data to provide greater insights into current research that addresses the goals of the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap.

NIST provides a significant investment for technology development. Relevant to capital projects and capital facilities The FIATECH Capital Facilities Technology Information System reports more than 240 currently funded projects valued at over $500 million for FY01 and FY02. Because many projects do not publish funding data, the actual funded value is likely much higher. This investment spans a broad range of programs from the major NIST laboratories and programs as indicated in Figure 3.1-1. At the federal level, the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) is the most visible champion of R&D that directly supports the capital projects industry. Major project/program areas include: • Product Data Standards for Industrial Facilities – Improving System Design, Fabrication and Installation • Advanced Graphical User Interfaces for Construction Project Delivery Systems • Project Information Management System Technologies

January 2003

3-43

Figure 3.1-1. NIST currently funds more than $500 million in R&D related to Capital Projects Technology Roadmap goals.


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Information Infrastructure for Building Simulations • Virtual Cybernetic Building Testbed • Advanced Construction Technology. The Advanced Construction Technology program (Figure 3.1-2) is focused on two primary areas: Structural Performance Prediction, and Construction Integration and Automation Technology (CONSIAT), which is discussed below.

CONSIAT CONSIAT’s objective is to achieve significant cycle time and life-cycle cost reductions in the Figure 3.1-2. The first focus of the Advanced delivery of construction projects by 2004 Construction Technology program is on integration and automation of project information, and integration of through the integration and automation of prometrology data from the construction site into project ject information and the integration of metrolmanagement systems. ogy data and other information from the construction site into project information management systems. Under this program, BFRL is developing 1) information representation and exchange protocols that describe construction processes and projects, 2) communication protocols that work in the distributed construction environment, 3) technical transaction protocols that support construction practices, and 4) performance metrics and recommended practices for construction measurement systems. BFRL will conduct a full-scale demonstration of a prototype FIAPP system in partnership with construction industry stakeholders by 2004. The CONSIAT program will enable further development of new automation capabilities that will lead to significant cycle time and life-cycle cost reductions in the delivery of construction projects by achieving breakthrough, technology-intensive process changes. Such breakthrough changes – with emphasis on integration, automation, and the filling of critical information gaps – are vital to the competitiveness of facility owners and owner-operators, as well as of engineer-procure-construct (EPC) or EPC-operatemaintain (EPCOM) contractors. Specifically, this program will contribute to U.S. industry’s ability to: compress project schedule through concurrent engineering and reduce design changes; enable better control of project schedule and cost; improve supply chain management, including the tracking of materials, equipment, and labor; rapidly detect and rectify differences between as-designed and as-built construction; and capture the physical and functional as-built status of a project for later use in facility commissioning, operation, maintenance, and renovation. CONSIAT is contributing to breakthrough process changes in two ways. First, it enables the integration and automation of project information within the context of the entire life cycle and enterprise-wide resource planning systems. Second, it brings metrology data and other information from the construction site into the project information management system, thus bridging the information gap between engineering, material management, on-site work processes, and project control systems. NIST will conduct a full-scale demonstration of a prototype FIAPP system in partnership with construction industry stakeholders by 2004. In addition, NIST is providing a FIAPP testbed – configured from an end-user viewpoint – to develop, evaluate, and verify an interoperable system of plug-and-play hardware and software components and to demonstrate proof-of-feasibility of prototype FIAPP systems and technologies.

January 2003

3-44


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The first-generation prototype FIAPP system will demonstrate feasibility, focusing on innovative process changes based on integration of robust/proven technologies. The second-generation system will integrate advanced functional capabilities, building on new measurement systems and innovative uses of information technology. In FY 2001, CONSIAT focused on subsystem information delivery; the earthwork, foundation, and structural (steel) delivery process; and the pipe spools and piping systems delivery process. Major results of CONSIAT research include: 1) Development of a prototype graphical user interface that demonstrates 3D web-based technologies for accessing and viewing construction project information using virtual reality modeling language (VRML). 2) Extension of the static data model in the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., (AISC) CIMSteel Integration Standard (CIS/2) to incorporate temporal data about the location and orientation of structural steelwork components and implementation of the model in a first-generation project management system database. 3) Field testing of an advanced interoperability protocol – LiveView – for the construction industry. Live View will ultimately permit "plug-and-play" communication capability between site sensors, wireless communications equipment, and third-party software to provide project management information using live data from the construction site. It will also provide and the downlink information necessary to bring automation to the construction site. 4) Field testing of a customized interactive web interface operating on a wireless, wearable field computer that can track components, machinery, and other mobile assets on a construction site in real-time by seamlessly integrating a laser-based real-time spatial positioning system, a bar code and radio frequency identification (RFID) scanning system, and a wireless data link. 5) Establishment of a collaborative project with the PlantSTEP Consortium, the U.S. Navy, and the shipbuilding industry to develop the systems design, fabrication, and extension of ISO 10303227. 6) Field testing of new techniques for using ultra-fast laser ranging (LIDAR) and 3D analysis technologies to automatically and non-intrusively scan an active construction site and to extract useful information concerning excavation status for project management. 7) Completion of a collaborative study with the Construction Industry Institute (Section 3.3) and publication of a report that documents the economic benefits and costs of FIATECH technologies.

Virtual Cybernetic Building Testbed (VCBT) The objective of this project is to develop a real-time, distributed cybernetic building emulator. The VCBT integrates a variety of simulation models with commercial and prototype controllers that create a hybrid software/hardware environment for testing various integrated control system components for cybernetic buildings. The VCBT will also simulate fault conditions for use in testing fault detection and diagnostics technology. The dynamic interactions of integrated control systems in a cybernetic building are not well understood. With increasing pressure to integrate more building control systems and services, there is a desperate need to test and evaluate the complex interactions of such systems under normal and adverse (i.e., emergency) operating situations. Control manufacturers and service providers need help in the development, testing, and certification of new products. These tasks cannot be accomplished using real buildings because of the complexity of the systems involved and the need to maintain a comfortable and safe building environment for occupants at all times.

January 2003

3-45


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The VCBT uses a distributed simulation environment and a commercial data acquisition system to link the simulations to real building control hardware. The simulation portion is made up from separate HVAC, fire model, and network analysis simulation tools previously developed by NIST. A sophisticated graphical front-end based on VRML provides the user interface to the testbed. The user interface will eventually allow researchers and service providers to use the VCBT, either onsite or remotely, to study system interactions, evaluate control algorithms, and test the performance of new services. Fault models will be developed for common heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system components and included in the VCBT to provide a controlled and reproducible environment for testing and evaluating fault detection and diagnostic tools. The VCBT will serve as a tool for testing building product information modeling concepts being developed by the International Alliance for Interoperability (Section 3.6) and others. The models will be implemented in the VCBT and used to drive the simulations needed for product testing and to investigate the automation of the configuration and commissioning of cybernetic building system products.

NIST Standards Activities PlantSTEP is an industrial consortium of companies that own, design, build, operate and maintain process plants and companies that supply equipment, materials and information technology for the process and construction industries. The primary focus of PlantSTEP is to develop and support implementation of data exchange standards based on ISO 10303 – STEP, the Standard for the Exchange of Product Data. Process Industries Executive for Achieving Business Advantage Using Standards for Data Exchange (PIEBASE) is the global umbrella for process industry consortia; member companies are active in the development of STEP and other standards for industrial data for the process industries.

High Performance Building Materials The first focus of the High Performance Building Materials program is to enable the reliable application of high-performance concrete (HPC) in buildings and the civil infrastructure. HPC refers to any concrete that has desirable performance attributes that cannot be met routinely with traditional materials and traditional processing. Examples are more durable, stronger, tougher, and more-easily-placed concrete. Barriers to full use of HPC include inadequate understanding of performance attributes, a lack of test methods for evaluating performance, a lack of guidelines for practice, and inefficient dissemination of knowledge to potential users. BFRL is developing methods for (1) determining rheological properties and curing conditions, (2) characterizing composition and uniformity, (3) simulating transport and cement hydration chemistry and molecular ion-solid interactions, (4) predicting the effects of fire on high-strength HPC, (5) gaining acceptance of the modified compression field theory for treatment of shear in HPC, and (6) calculating its lifecycle cost. The results of all program elements are being incorporated into a prototype interoperable distributed computer-integrated knowledge system, HYPERCON. The second focus of the High Performance Building Materials program is to develop methods for measuring and predicting the service life of polymeric building materials. The development of accurate and accelerated methods for predicting the service life is an enabling technology to significantly reduce the time to market for new products. Among other activities, BFRL is (1) developing a model to predict the depletion rate of ultraviolet stabilizers commonly used to protect polymers and coatings, (2) developing a model to predict the instantaneous bulk and surface moisture content of polymers and coatings, and (3) developing standard methods for evaluating the mechanical properties of polymers under complex states of stress such as high loads over a small contact area.

January 2003

3-46


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

3.2 CIVIL ENGINEERING RESEARCH FOUNDATION The Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) serves as an industry-guided facilitator, coordinator, and integrator for the design and construction industry and the civil engineering profession. CERF’s mission is to enhance the quality, timeliness, and effective delivery of essential research and innovation into practice, while assuring coordinated efforts among institutions with similar agendas. CERF is a major participant in the national High-Performance CONstruction MATerials and Systems (CONMAT) program, a 10-year, $2 billion national program of technological research, development, and deployment. Its goal is to accelerate the commercialization of innovative materials and systems as rapidly as possible. CONMAT is the culmination of an intense industry-led effort that began in 1993, involving detailed planning studies by a dozen different material supplier groups. Specific CONMAT technology areas and associated goals are outlined in Table 3.2-1. Table 3.2-1. CERF CONMAT Technology Thrusts Area Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites

Smart Material Devices & Monitoring Systems

Steel

Wood Concrete

Masonry

Stainless Materials Cross Cutting Materials

January 2003

Projects • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Development and Demonstration of FRP Composite Dowel Rods for Concrete Highway Construction Repair or Upgrade of Deteriorated Concrete Structures Using FRP Composites Development and Demonstration of FRP Composite Reinforcing Bars Development and Demonstration of FRP Composite Tendons for Prestressed Concrete FRP Composites in Hybrid Combination with Iron and Steel FRP Composites in Hybrid Combination with Aluminum FRP Composites in Hybrid Combination with Structural Timber (Wood) Bridge Monitoring by Passive Smart Sensors Structural Health Monitoring of Various Bridge Designs and Usage Problems Virginia Rt. 58 Bridge Deck and Monitoring Project Structural Monitoring of Composite Wraps Applied to Concrete Columns and Piers in Seismic Areas Seismic Monitoring Systems for Civil Structures Establishing Ductile Fracture Models High-Performance Steel for Infrastructure Applications with Emphasis on Bridges High Performance Steels in Bridges Fiber Reinforced Glue-Laminated Timber Performance Enhancing Treatments for Wood Fracture Processes Examined with Computer Vision Extruded Fiber Reinforced-Cement Pressure Pipes Shrinkage Reducing Admixtures Low Cost Extruded Structural Members 2D-ESPI Technology High Strength Fiber-Reinforced Composites Brick/Mortar Compatibility Limit States Design Research Shear Resistance of Prestressed Masonry Brick Freeze-Thaw Durability Development of Stainless Steel Rebars Use of Stainless Steel in Joints Use of Stainless Steel as Roofing Material Life-Cycle Information Systems for Building and Facilities

3-47


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

3.3 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE The mission of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) is to improve the safety, quality, schedule, and cost effectiveness of the capital investment process through research and implementation support for the purpose of providing a competitive advantage to its members in the global marketplace. The CII research program is wide ranging, with the establishment of over 85 research teams working in collaboration with over 30 research universities since 1985. The research is classified into six target areas: • New Technology Adoption • Business Relationships • People • Globalization • Integration with Business Objective • Information Transfer. The CII’s Emerging Construction Technologies web site (http://www.new-technologies.org/ECT/) maintains comprehensive information and links to more than 200 new and emerging products in five major area (Table 3.3-1). Table 3.3-1. CII Emerging Construction Technologies Coverage Area Civil

Mechanical Technologies

Internet-Based

Electrical

Other

January 2003

Technologies • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Building Systems Composite Materials and Technologies Concrete Technologies Construction Equipment and Methods Demolition Foundations Air Distribution Basic Mechanical Materials Building Services, Process, and Fire Protection Piping Conveying Systems Heat Generation Equipment HVAC Equipment and Controls Information Services Network Technology & Equipment Web-based Learning Systems Electrical Materials and Methods Electrical Power Lighting Low-voltage Distribution Communication Engineering Software Equipment Automation Non-Destructive Evaluation Remediation

3-48

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Masonry Technologies Roofing Technologies Steel Technologies Actuated or Pneumatic Tools Structural Connection Technologies Trenchless Technologies Industrial Equipment Internal Pipeline Assessment Technologies Pipe Technologies Plumbing Fixtures and Equipment Refrigeration Equipment Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing Welding Technologies Web-based Project Management Web-enabled Engineering Software

• Sound and Video • Transmission and Distribution • Wiring Methods • • • •

Robotics Site Positioning and Metrology Soil Remediation Water/Waste Systems


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The CII also serves as an industry focal point for Best Practices, offering descriptions, tools, and supporting information on the subjects of: Baselined Best Practices • • • • • • • • • • •

Proposed Best Practices • • • • • • • • • • • •

Pre-Project Planning Alignment Constructability Design Effectiveness Materials Management Team Building Partnering Quality Management Change Management Disputes Resolution Zero Accidents Techniques

Early Estimating Planning for Startup Design for Maintainability Employee Incentives Management of Education and Training Organizational Work Structure Leader Selection Implementation of Products Lessons Learned Managing Workers' Compensation Environmental Remediation Management Design for Safety.

3.4 FEDERAL FACILITIES COUNCIL The Federal Facilities Council (FFC) is a cooperative association of 21 federal agencies with interests and responsibilities related to facility design, acquisition, management, maintenance, and evaluation. The FFC operates under the auspices of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment (BICE) of the National Research Council, the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The FFC's mission is to identify and advance technologies, processes, and facilities management practices that improve the performance of facilities over their entire life cycle, from planning to disposal. To achieve its mission, the FFC: • Develops and disseminates facilities-related information through networking, conferences, workshops, and studies • Provides a forum to identify government-wide issues regarding facility planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and management • Convenes standing committee meetings to promote networking and information sharing among sponsor agencies. Three of the ongoing and planned FFC studies are described below.

Compendium of Best Practices for Facility Operations and Maintenance This activity will focus on identifying best practices for facility operations and maintenance that should be standard practice for facility organizations in the 21st Century. Issues to be addressed range from reliability-centered maintenance to sustainable design to indoor air quality. A major objective is to describe the practices in order to increase the understanding of the importance of these practices among decision makers, building users, and others.

Performance Based Condition Assessments The objective of this study is to develop a conceptual, hierarchical framework for assessing the condition/functionality of facilities in relation to use and mission support. The framework will identify general categories of use (administrative, health facility, research) and relate these to factors affecting functionality such as energy provision/usage, indoor air quality, user comfort/satisfaction, infrastructure for infor-

January 2003

3-49


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE mation technology support, maintenance expenses, and environmental standards. Related topics to be addressed include baselines for performance measurement; identifying the root causes for unsatisfactory performance; potential solutions to improving performance; available tools and resources; core competencies needed to assess facilities using this framework; and the costs/benefits of assessing buildings based on functionality.

Best Practices for Developing Scopes of Work for Design Services This study will compile information about how federal agencies and private sector facilities organizations are developing project scopes of work and identify best practices that could be used by federal agencies. Issues to be addressed include tying scopes of work to different types of project delivery systems; differences in scopes of work for new construction vs. rehabilitation; the core competencies and organizational support needed to develop effective scopes of work; how technology can be used to support this process; and performance measures for determining the effectiveness of the advance planning process.

3.5 NSTC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Subcommittee on Construction and Building (C&B) was organized in 1994 to coordinate and focus the work of 14 federal agencies in enhancing the competitiveness of U S. industry, public and worker safety, and environmental quality through R&D. The subcommittee works in cooperation with U.S. industry, labor, and academia to improve the life-cycle performance, sustainability, efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of constructed facilities. At the start, C&B, in consultation with industry, formulated national construction goals to guide federal agencies and industry in the focus and coordination of the $500 million annual federal R&D relevant to the industries of construction through programs such as CONMAT, which is discussed in Section 3.2. Other C&B initiatives of note include a project to streamline the building regulatory process and technical and financial support to the National Evaluation Service – the Building Innovation Center, the Highway Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC), the Environmental Technology Management Center (EvTec), and the Civil Engineering Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (CEITEC).

3.6 INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR INTEROPERABILITY The International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) is an action-oriented, not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its mission is to define, publish and promote specifications for Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) as a basis for project information sharing in architecture, engineering, construction, and facilities management across all disciplines and technical applications. IFCs define a single object model (i.e., object-oriented data model) of buildings shared by all IFCcompliant applications. IFC project models define individual buildings for which compliant applications can exchange information accurately and error-free. IAI’s IFC Extension development and other projects address: • • • • •

HVAC Performance Validation HVAC Modeling and Simulation Code Compliance Support Engineering Maintenance Costs, Accounts and Financial Elements in FM • Material Selection, Specification and Procurement

January 2003

3-50

• • • •

Steel Frame Structures Reinforced Concrete Structures Precast Concrete Construction Structural Analysis Model and Steel Constructions • IFC drafting extension • Business Transaction Standards • High-Level Classification Framework.


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

3.7 DESIGN-BUILD INSTITUTE OF AMERICA The Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) was founded in 1993 to support the emergence of designbuild project delivery as a significant force in the design and construction field, recombining the vital roles of designer and constructor. DBIA's purpose is to improve the level of practice on a continuing basis, to disseminate educational information, and to furnish advice and support to facility owners and users. One of DBIA's most important missions is to promote the widespread and successful utilization of the design-build project delivery method throughout industry and government. DBIA implements this goal through: • Development and dissemination of standard procedures for design-build procurement, including model RFP formats, criteria packages, and best practices documents • Active promotion of design-build by participating in industry and client seminars, educational programs and a wide range of public forums • Continuing education programs to increase the level of knowledge and expertise of design-build practitioners • Working with key private corporations and government agencies to institute consistent and workable procurement practices • Adapting state procurement and licensing laws to facilitate design-build delivery • Providing services to members, including a variety of informational materials and specific assistance in influencing design-build use.

3.8 THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) Through a broad range of science and engineering programs, NSF supports a variety of technology developments directly related to the goals and requirements of the roadmapping initiative. According to the FIATECH Capital Facilities Technology Information System, NSF is currently funding more than 672 projects valued at over $265 million (Figure 3.8-1). This total does not include recently announced awards for post-disaster assessments of the World Trade Center; these grants will have direct value to the structural engineering and damage assessment technology areas of the roadmapping initiative.

Figure 3.8-1. NSF is currently funding more than 672 projects valued at over $265 million that support technology developments directly related to the goals of the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap.

January 2003

3-51


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE NSF is responsive to engineering and science requirements from nanotechnology to major structures. A new $1 million program has recently been announced for multidisciplinary research into critical infrastructure and related systems; the focus of this program is on technologies for mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery from disasters and other extreme events. Three NSF Engineering Directorate programs provide substantial support for capital facilities projects. The NSF Engineering Education Centers (EECs) focus on integrating cross-disciplinary partnerships that support technological and educational innovation. EECs developing technologies specifically relevant to the roadmapping initiative include the following Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) activities: • Center for Engineering Logistics & Distribution – research on integrated solutions to logistics problems through modeling, analysis, and intelligent-systems technologies. • ERC for Reconfigurable Machining Systems and ERC for Intelligent Maintenance Systems – development of web-based informatics to enable remote monitoring and assessment of production machinery in internet-augmented reconfigurable manufacturing environments. • ERC for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems – technologies for design, fabrication, construction, and in-service monitoring of structures. Major efforts are focused on design of connections for automated construction, creation of knowledge-based systems for computer integration of construction processes, applicability and efficacy of novel structural materials for initial construction and for structural rehabilitation, and sensing and instrumentation for in-service monitoring of structure condition and performance. • ERC for Net Shape Manufacturing – focuses on creation of an integrated design system offering a choice of materials, metals or plastics, and manufacturing processes in the design and production of net-shape parts. • Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for the Built Environment – dedicated to industries and professions that design and construct buildings, manufacture building components, and operate and maintain buildings. Its objective is to improve the performance of buildings by enhancing their indoor environmental quality, and by improving energy efficiency. • NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Center in Quality and Reliability Engineering – focuses on research that addresses a variety of topics including product improvements, design for quality, reliability prediction, equipment and process characterization, and multivariate process monitoring and control. The NSF Civil and Mechanical Systems division focuses on research related to infrastructure construction and management. This division also funds research on geotechnology, structures, dynamics and control, mechanics, materials, and sensing for civil and mechanical systems. Technologies that will lead to the reduction of risks induced by earthquakes and other natural and technological hazards are also supported. The division is comprised of five specific program, all multi-disciplinary in focus: • Dynamic System Modeling, Sensing, and Control • Geotechnical and Geohazards Systems • Infrastructure and Information Systems • Solid Mechanics and Materials Engineering • Structural Systems and Engineering. The Design, Manufacture and Industrial Innovation division supports fundamental research in addition to crosscutting, multidisciplinary programs that support small business and organization innovation and academic collaboration through industrial innovation programs including Small Business Innovation Re-

January 2003

3-52


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE search (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR). Other key programs aligned to the technology development goals of the capital projects roadmap include: • Engineering Design • Operations Research • Manufacturing Enterprise Systems • Service Enterprise Engineering • Materials Processing and Manufacturing.

3.9 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The Department of Energy (DOE) strongly supports energy conservation, efficiency, and resource preservation through a number of laboratories, programs and user facilities including Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the Applied Materials Processing Research Center, the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, and the Physiochemical Properties Measurement Laboratory. DOE initiatives such as the Building Technology program and the Industrial Materials for the Future program have been instrumental in identifying related research. In a series of technology roadmaps and associated funded programs, many projects are in direct alignment to the FIATECH roadmapping initiative. DOE is currently funding more than 120 projects investing over $800 million that relate to FIATECH roadmap goals.

3.10 CURRENT GAP ANALYSIS OF FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS R&D projects captured in the FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Information System are analyzed by subject-matter experts who identify the roadmap goals and requirements that the projects address. Because of the broad focus of many projects, one project is often associated to more than one element of the roadmap. Analysis of these associations provides a unique opportunity to evaluate how current federally funded research addresses the technology requirements of the roadmap. This insight is very helpful to organizations who understand their own organization’s investments and needs, but may not be aware of the collective investment being made across multiple agencies. The “Top 10 Goals” table (Table 3.10-1) at right is based on analysis of projects currently available through the FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Information System. This table identifies specific roadmap goals – from the full set of Goals and Table 3.10-1. Requirements presented in Section 5 of this “Top 10” Capital Projects Technology Roadmap Goals document – with the highest level of relevant Supported by Current Federal R&D Projects federally funded R&D activities. The “Bottom 10 Goals” table (Table 3.10-2) on the following page identifies those areas where little investment is being made in direct support of a roadmap goal – and therefore the likelihood of achieving the goal is at risk. It is important to note that further analysis of these goals should be made against the database before determining that these areas are under-funded.

No. of Cites* 427 312 275 270 267 265 245 222 185 176

FIATECH Roadmap Goal Enhanced Materials & Components Project Management Knowledge System Integrated Communication Between Systems Integrated Communication Between Systems Improved Materials Engineering Universal Data Availability Automated, Rapid-Erecting Facilities Real-Time Measurable Facility Condition Assessment Integrated & Optimized Global Supply Network Enablers for Automated Design

*Total number of records found in the database that relate to the search subject.

January 2003

3-53


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 3.10-2. “Bottom 10” Capital Projects Technology Roadmap Goals Supported by Current Federal R&D Projects No. of Cites 2 4 5 8 10 11 15 15 15 16

FIATECH Roadmap Goal Automated Real-Time Sampling & Compliance Reporting Automated Startup Support Real-Time O&M Information Exchange with Supply/Demand Network Integrated Stakeholder Business Systems Autonomous Design & Construction Capability Streamlined, Knowledge-Driven Approval Processes Intelligent Job Site Radically Advanced Construction Concepts Global Project Cost Models Distributed Change Management

*Total number of records found in the database that relate to the search subject.

January 2003

3-54


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

4.0 FUTURE STATE VISION FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECTS/FACILITIES INDUSTRY 4.1 THE FUTURE STATE VISION The overarching vision of the future for the capital projects industry, outlined in this section and summarized in Figure 4.1-1, is of a highly automated project and facility management environment integrated across all phases and processes of the capital facility life cycle. It is a vision of all needed information being available on demand, enabling all project partners and project functions to instantly and securely “plug together” their operations and systems irrespective of geography, culture, and technology preferences. Interconnected, automated systems, processes, and equipment will radically reduce the time and cost of planning, design, and construction. The result will be better facilities – optimized for performance, functionality, aesthetics, affordability, sustainability, and responsiveness to changing business demands. Intelligent processes, equipment, and engineered materials will assure conformance to design and regulatory requirements, simplify operation and maintenance (O&M), reduce O&M costs, and radically extend the effective life and flexibility of facilities and structures. This vision is not an entirely new creation. The FIAPP (Fully Integrated and Automated Project Processes) concept has been part of the capital projects vocabulary for several years. It originated with NIST and the Construction Industries Institute and was the driver behind the formation of FIATECH. Hence, as FIATECH provides the impetus for realizing the vision of FIAPP, it is clearly executing the mission for which it was formed.

Figure 4.1-1. The Vision model provides a systems framework for achieving industry’s vision of the future.

January 2003

4-1


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE As described in Section 1, the Vision model is the result of a deliberate development process integrating the input of a large number of industry experts. The following subsections walk through the elements of the Vision model and highlight the key attributes of the vision for each element. While the elements are addressed individually, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the vision is of a fully integrated environment. Since the task of building a single system of such unprecedented scale and scope is far too large to address in the context of a single project, the project plans presented in Section 7 define stepwise approaches to developing, validating, and deploying the key elements while providing a clear path to the ultimate goal.

#1 Scenario-Based Project Planning The capital project planning system of the future will enable the interactive creation of project plans based on customer needs and preferences and direct access to the complete and comprehensive data needed to make the best decisions in the context of the total project life cycle. Project teams will interact with customers and other stakeholders to develop and refine a complete set of requirements and plans from an initial statement of need. Options will be evaluated rapidly using a rich suite of modeling and simulation tools that enable rapid exploration of different scenarios to arrive at the best design and the best plan, providing the conceptual basis for the detailed design effort. Based on project type, scope, and location, the system will interface with external databases to capture regulatory requirements, codes, and standards and allocate them to the design requirements knowledge base. The system will automatically generate an initial work breakdown structure and other elements of the project management toolset to provide a comprehensive framework for costing and scheduling, The project planning team will interface with the design team to iterate conceptual designs for review and selection, using immersive modeling and simulation techniques that let planners and stakeholders view and concur on functionality, aesthetics, layouts, flowsheets, and features as well as construction strategies. The system will draw on captured knowledge of previous projects and links to business systems to determine availability and prevailing pricing of labor, materials, and equipment, enabling accurate roughorder-of-magnitude cost and schedule estimates to support the project financing process and facilitate authorization to proceed to the design phase. All of the information generated in the phase will be used to populate a master facility life-cycle model (described in detail in Section 7) that will serve as the interface for all project operations, applications, and information flows and ultimately evolve as the master control model for the operational facility across its entire life.

#2 Real-Time Project Management, Coordination, and Control The capital project of the future will be executed as a well-orchestrated and predictable series of interrelated tasks and activities optimized for effectiveness and efficiency. Resources and plans will be coordinated in an error-free fashion, radically reducing the time and cost required to move from planning to design to construction to operational handover. The project management interface to the master facility lifecycle model, linked to information sources and pervasive sensors, will provide accurate, continuous, realtime visibility of progress and status of all activities; flag any problems; and serve as the command and control mechanism for resolving issues, replanning on the fly, and keeping the project on track. Project management will be facilitated by secure, real-time access to any and all data about the project. The master facility life-cycle model will automatically ripple approved changes to affected project stakeholders and systems. The project control system will continuously monitor status against the project baseline, instantly recognize any variance, issue alerts, support analysis and decision-making by project managers, and help communicate the needed corrective actions. A unified industry knowledge management framework and supporting applications will enable collection and integration of project experience and data in useful form. This knowledge base will be continuously updated and applied by expert systems to support all technical and business functions of the enterprise. assuring that all decisions are optimized for desired results and best value.

January 2003

4-2


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

#3 Automated Design The future capital project design system will draw on a rich base of captured knowledge and expertise to rapidly develop and validate optimum, fully compliant designs and automatically generate technical and business data packages for procurement and construction. The design process will start from the conceptual design approved in the planning phase and rapidly flesh out the detailed design with associated costs, schedules, and specifications. The design system will automatically support change propagation, rippling the impact of changes through all affected parts of the project. The design system will draw on shared knowledge bases of material properties, methods, regulatory requirements and accurate 3-D CAD models to quickly populate the master facility life-cycle model. The model will serve as the project controller, assuring that the project plan and design are faithfully executed. The model will automatically compensate for changes and will issue alerts for any technical, cost, or schedule deviations beyond predefined logical thresholds. The system will interact with its users to refine and allocate requirements, access needed data from inside and outside the project, apply best-practice design principles, and optimize solutions through real-time modeling and simulation. Different modules of the system will support different design functions, including structural, mechanical, electrical, architectural, and process engineering disciplines. Intelligent design advisors will lead the designers through the process of, for example, translating a process facility flowsheet into a complete detailed design, including all piping and instrumentation drawings (PIDs), equipment layouts and specifications, process control mechanisms and parameters, space allocations, and inspection and test plans. The system will automatically verify design compliance with specifications, codes, regulatory requirements, issuing alerts and making recommendations to protect specified design margins. The ability to automatically translate requirements into design features and tap technology resources from any sector will be a particular benefit in designing in structural and process protections and resiliency to meet emerging mandates of Homeland Security for safe, secure, and “hardened” infrastructure. The design environment will enable all customers and suppliers to interact in the design process to ensure that stakeholder needs are met in the best possible way, with assured protection of vulnerability data and other security-sensitive information.

#4 Integrated, Automated Procurement and Supply The capital facilities industry will interact in a distributed information environment that enables suppliers and subcontractors across the country (and, with appropriate security, the world) to seamlessly “plug in” to any project, identify business opportunities, and exchange requirements and bid information. Suppliers of materials, parts, equipment, tools, and other products will maintain on-line knowledge bases of their products, with all product information (including dimensions, performance specifications, tolerances, cost, supply lead times, options, available quantities, etc.) captured in 3-D product models that designers can plug into the master facility model as it evolves. The product design system will output a total procurement package including bill of material, schedule, cost targets, delivery requirements, and performance specifications for every element of the facility, and the procurement system will use this package to canvass the supplier community, solicit and evaluate bids, make source selection recommendations, automatically place orders, and track status through to delivery and acceptance. Any items or material on the project critical path will be automatically statused at appropriate intervals, ensuring that the supplier is on schedule and alerting the project team to any schedule or cost variances. The system will also maintain a database of supplier data to aid in the sourcing process, including historical performance, technical and management qualifications, quality ratings, small/disadvantaged business status and similar parameters.

January 2003

4-3


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

#5 Intelligent Construction Execution The construction sites of the future will be dominated by reconfigurable, modular facilities produced using lightweight, high-performance materials procured through a demand-based supply network that is directed and controlled using the master facility life-cycle model. The model will provide a complete facility/project generation breakdown and bill of material with specifications, target costs, lead times, need dates, and delivery requirements for every item. The model will also define the requirements, specifications, work plans, and craft standards for the construction effort, providing a complete step-wise build plan including in-process inspections and quality checks. Automation of construction processes will augment manual labor for hazardous and labor-intensive tasks such as welding and high-steel work. The construction site will be empowered by “knowledge workers” who are technology enabled and fully invested in the success of the operation. Job sites will be wirelessly networked with sensors and communications that enable every worker to perform their jobs quickly and correctly. Location and status of all materials, equipment, personnel, and other resources will be continuously tracked, enabling a “pull” environment where needed resources are delivered on demand. Linked to the master facility model, the intelligent job site will continuously monitor compliance with cost, schedule, and technical performance criteria, resulting in significant time compression for construction operations. Lightweight, high-strength, smart materials and components fabricated and applied by intelligent construction systems will radically reduce the time and cost of construction while greatly extending the lifespan and flexibility of both facilities and structures. Flexible and “programmable” properties will enable materials to be easily transported, placed, formed, and attached with little or no cure times or temporary support structures. This is an area of particular importance for Homeland Defense, enabling design and construction of capital structures that are hardened against deliberate acts of destruction as well as accidents and natural disasters.

#6 Intelligent Facility Operation and Maintenance Future capital facilities will be equipped with intelligent equipment and systems that continuously monitor their own condition and performance against defined parameters. These systems will autonomously invoke needed actions, using built-in mechanisms to perform required maintenance and repairs (including recalibration and replenishment) or automatically communicate instructions to external operations support systems. A comprehensive and robust network of sensors and processors will provide continuous visibility of operational status and performance, flagging problems and significant trends for system or human attention. O&M activities and decisions will be based on a fully integrated consideration of all life-cycle, environmental, cost, and performance factors based on accurate, current, and complete data captured and maintained in the master facility life-cycle model. Self-maintaining, self-repairing facilities, systems, and equipment will enable safe, secure, continuously optimized operations with near-zero downtime and with no undue effects to health, safety, or the environment. These systems will feed information into the master facility model and enterprise knowledge base to enable better decisions in every phase of the lifecycle, from project planning and design to construction and to eventual facility decommissioning. Capital facilities will be managed using accurate simulations of processes, physical structures, and functional operations that are embedded in the master facility life-cycle model and continuously updated with current data. These models will enable a full understanding of technical and business issues associated with every aspect of life-cycle performance. The master facility model, created in the project planning phase, enriched in the design phase, and verified to-the-as-built configuration produced in the construction phase, will serve as the controller for operation and maintenance of the facility, continuously reporting operational status and identifying deviations and trends for automated and human-directed corrective action.

January 2003

4-4


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

4.2 KEY CROSSCUTTING THEMES Industry’s vision of the future has many common themes that cut across all aspects of the business. Highlevel integration of information, systems, and processes is essential, and the interoperability problems of today’s systems are a critical barrier that must be overcome. While this roadmap frequently mentions the need for different systems to feed and/or share information with each other, the key to the vision is that what is really needed is a “system of systems” that is integrated yet totally flexible to meet the needs of different stakeholders in the project process. This implies a collection of tools, totally interoperable with each other and performing their individual functions flawlessly while supporting the needs of all other tools and functions. The concept also implies automated “abstraction” - an ability to compose or decompose the information to a needed level of detail and specificity about any component of the project. Another pervasive theme is availability and accessibility of information and data. There are myriad different types of information that must be simultaneously shared, controlled, and protected, enabling each project partner to optimally perform their tasks without compromising security or any partner’s competitive position. There is thus a clear need to create an organizational sharing paradigm wherein all shared information, data, and knowledge as a whole can reside in a common, if distributed, repository. The same type of organizational structure is needed for proprietary information, to allow seamless combining of the two types of information by individual companies or project teams. Achieving the vision will also rely strongly on a transformed workforce that is trained, empowered, and equipped to perform in the integrated environment. Changes in the way that instructions, information, and materials will flow will require additional skills, knowledge, and access to information not common at today’s job sites. As more automated processes and highly engineered materials and assembly methods are implemented, traditional craft skills will give way to knowledge-based skills and a reshaping of work content. Academic and educational processes must begin to prepare tomorrow’s workforce for this transformation. A new and urgent theme is the need to address security, survivability, hardening, and resiliency of capital facilities and structures. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 demonstrated the relative ease with which a handful of determined individuals can inflict terrible losses of life and billions of dollars of damage by attacking vulnerable infrastructure targets. New facilities must be designed – and to the extent possible, existing structures retrofitted – to be defendable and survivable against physical attacks, biological agents, and other threats of mass destruction. The project plans presented in Section 7 begin to address some of these issues, and Section 6 defines specific high-priority needs identified by the Capital Projects Roadmapping team.

January 2003

4-5


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

5.0 GOALS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECTS/FACILITIES INDUSTRY This section provides a detailed presentation of the specific Goals and Requirements – generated by the San Antonio workshop team and refined by the Virginia workshop team and other industry reviewers – required to attain the “vision state” articulated in Section 4. Each of the major elements of the Vision model is addressed within the framework of the four Focus Areas: • Focus Area 1 – Project Planning & Management • Focus Area 2 – Project/Facility Design • Focus Area 3 – Procurement & Construction Operations • Focus Area 4 – Facility Operation & Maintenance. Each of the following subsections provides a brief description of the desired future state for the Focus Area, followed by a detailed definition of the specific capability to be provided by each Goal and Requirement. While Project Plans presented in Section 7 address recommended actions to implement the desired capabilities, a number of Goals and Requirements in each section are not specifically addressed by the plans and therefore represent additional scope which must be addressed in future planning phases.

5.1 PROJECT PLANNING & MANAGEMENT

January 2003

5-1


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

5.1.1 Business/Facility/Project Planning Vision: A virtual facility project planning environment will provide an integrated suite of highly automated planning tools and secure access to all relevant information in real time for all elements of a project. The environment will instantly access relevant historical information and provide visually and mathematically accurate scenarios enabling optimum business decisions. The business planning environment of the future capital project will enable decision makers to have realtime access to all of the data needed to understand requirements, goals, issues, and options. Advanced simulation tools coupled to enterprise information systems will enable creation, at project inception, of a master facility simulation model that serves as the single-point source for all information about the project. The master model will be the project team’s interface for all project functions, and will be gradually built up over the course of the project as the design is completed, specifications are developed, subcontractors are selected, construction plans are developed, etc. Powerful assessment and planning tools linked to the master model and external information sources will enable project teams to quickly capture and iterate requirements, objectives, technical and business issues, and options to arrive at optimum solutions based on accurate and complete data. Model-based risk assessment tools will enable planners to explore physical and financial risk scenarios to make informed decisions that balance cost drivers against risk factors. Safety/security-sensitive data will be protected from unauthorized access yet immediately available to authorized team personnel and cognizant oversight agencies through encrypted communications links. Real-time project simulation engines will enable every aspect of the facility or structure to be evaluated under a full range of operating conditions. Plug-and-play enterprise process models reflecting business rules and current economic data will support the planning function. Changes in any underlying data (design change, supplier schedule slip, etc.) will be updated in the master facility model and immediately communicated to all affected functions, enabling fast replanning “on the fly” with appropriate provisions for management command and control. The planning tools will leverage a deep base of captured industry experience to accurately scope candidate projects; define and allocate requirements and cost/schedule targets; solicit and engage subcontractors and suppliers; and quantify risks and establish plans for their mitigation. Decisions will be made based on full consideration of all customer needs and wants, and business case inputs. These inputs will include accurate market forecasts and full knowledge of regulatory, technical, demographic, and other factors. Goals & Requirements for Business/Facility/Project Planning • Goal 1: M&S Systems for Capital Project Planning – Provide an integrated modeling and simulation environment that includes all aspects of capital project planning in a structure that supports high-level understanding of plans and issues and enables “drill down” into successively greater layers of detail. – Master Facility Model – Develop a modeling and simulation environment that enables creation of an initial master facility model at project inception, providing secure, single-point access to any information about the project and allowing the model to be systematically expanded and built up as the project definition evolves. – Planning M&S Tools – Extend present modeling and simulation tools to support accurate and complete planning and analysis of all aspects of a capital project, using continuously current data linked in from the design system, financial system, scheduling system, and external sources such as regulatory agencies, subcontractors, and sources of supply.

January 2003

5-2


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Goal 2: Scenario-Based Project Decision Support System – Provide a business planning environment that incorporates expert knowledge, experience, and data from both public and private data domains to enable exploration and evaluation of different business scenarios for any project. – Decision Support Applications for Business Modeling – Develop simulation and modeling tools that capture all business requirements and rules and have access to real-time global economic, market, environmental, sociopolitical conditions, demographics, and other business factors. – Decision Support Applications for Risk Assessment – Develop risk assessment tools that provide technically accurate predictive analysis in all relevant domains, including vulnerability analysis and failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis for potential catastrophic events such as natural disasters, accidents, or premeditated attacks. – Integration of Information for Decision Support Applications – Integrate public and private domain information/knowledge with modeling and simulation systems to enable high-fidelity evaluation of project scenarios and options. Information to be integrated would include supply network information, extended enterprise core competencies, public and company information, and all other data that would facilitate strategic decisions such as site selection, project scoping, and selection of project teaming structure and partners.

5.1.2 Project Management Vision: Automated project management systems will integrate activities and collaboration among all stakeholders over the entire project life cycle. The systems will collect and analyze all relevant information, provide real-time data as needed to all stakeholders, and act on and report routine situations. When nonroutine situations are detected, the system will flag problems and enable fast, effective resolutions using knowledge-based intelligent control coupled with human decision-making. In the future, project managers will be empowered by continuous availability of all the information they need to make good decisions. Project management systems will help managers monitor and control projects by collecting information from sensors and information sources throughout the project, in both construction and operation. In the longer term, intelligent systems will perform many of the routine control functions through integration of closed-loop control technologies and robust operational models. Interoperable design, planning, and status tracking systems will automatically integrate their results and report progress of discrete events against requirements, plans, and expectations. Information needed by different project functions will be automatically communicated to the appropriate system and persons. The system will have the “intelligence” to dynamically adapt to changes, to handle routine decisions and make minor adjustments to plans, and to document all actions taken. The system will generate automatic prompts and alerts to keep all work on track and identify problems as soon as they arise. When problems are detected, the system will alert the management team, present all available information on the situation, and offer recommended solutions or actions based on captured knowledge of best practices and enterprise experience. The system will integrate communication and management through all project activities and phases, from conceptual design through operation and decommissioning. This will reduce labor needed for administrative functions and extend human capacities in decision-making and troubleshooting. Project coordinators will have secure, real-time data access across the entire project, enabling proactive expediting and decision making. Management systems will automatically reconfigure in response to changes, providing continuous connectivity between all processes. Model-based project management will be the norm. The project control function will automatically assess status against the project baseline, instantly recognize any variance in cost/schedule performance, issue alerts, analyze the situation, and recommend corrective actions.

January 2003

5-3


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The project coordination system – functionally a module of the overall project management system – will track and monitor operational progress, based on real-time data input from sensors and task managers, against the master simulation model of the project. Tracking tags (e.g. using radio frequency identification) will provide automated updates of component/equipment/material location, assuring assets get where they need to go and enabling them to be located on demand, as needed. These capabilities will also help assure security of assets and operations from both internal and external threats. When off-normal occurrences or variances against resource utilization or progress milestones occur, the system will immediately recognize the nonconformance and issue appropriate alerts. Real-world scientific and financial knowledge will be applied in addition to project information to warn of problems, suggest where additional knowledge is needed, and automatically generate recovery options to get the project back on track. The master project simulation model will be automatically updated with as-accomplished/as-built information. Reconfigurable processes will automatically adjust to changes in the working environment that are within reasonable thresholds, and will interactively help project managers to address significant changes. The project coordination and control system will be “knowledge engineered” so that experience and lessons learned are automatically added to the enterprise knowledge base. This accumulated knowledge will enable continued improvement of project management performance by providing feedback and adjustments to project operations. Goals & Requirements for Project Management • Goal 1: Intelligent Project Management System – Provide interactive systems that integrate knowledge-based tools with human decision-making to capture, analyze, document, store, protect, and deliver accurate, real-time information supporting all project management needs. – Standards for Project Information and Knowledge Representation – Develop standardized means of representing information/knowledge that can serve multiple systems supporting project management functions for any kind of capital project. – Project Data/Information Repositories – Develop application-neutral data/information repositories that store all types of project information from different partners, suppliers, and different domains in common formats, manage that information for controlled access to all who need it, and support all project coordination functions, including needs for both standard reports and ad-hoc requests. – Self-Integrating Project Management Systems – Develop methods for autonomous integration of interconnecting project management systems across large project teams, enabling the systems to automatically define and negotiate pathways for information sharing and transfer in a way that supports the needs of each system. – Intelligent Project Analyst – Develop a project management toolset with the ability to analyze activities, recognize and evaluate conflicts, analyze risks, and recommend actions based on situational analysis. The toolset will interact with and enhance the user’s capabilities, learn and continually build the enterprise knowledge base, and adapt to the needs of individual companies, users, and projects. – Secure, Accessible Information – Develop data security methods and techniques to protect information from unauthorized change or access, yet make it immediately available to authorized users who need it. – Real-Time Capture of Complex Information – Develop the capability to capture all needed project information from a variety of sources in real time and make it available to all project management and execution systems.

January 2003

5-4


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Goal 2: Optimized Construction Sequence & Schedule – Provide a scenario-based planning environment that enables optimization of the construction and procurement sequence and schedule. – Automated Optimization of Construction Execution Strategies – Develop simulation capabilities that support rapid, accurate optimization (and automated replanning) of construction sequencing and scheduling to make the most cost- and time-efficient use of labor, materials, equipment, and other resources. – Secure, Transparent Sharing of Construction Sequence & Scheduling Data – Establish specifications for seamless, secure exchange of construction execution planning data with all members of the project supply network, assuring controlled access of all proprietary and nonproprietary construction sequencing and scheduling data – Interoperability & Integration of Construction Sequence & Schedule Systems – Develop standards and tools enabling design systems to interoperate with all systems related to construction sequencing and scheduling, including procurement, automated generation of data packages, and tracking of materials/services from provider to construction site. • Goal 3: Model-Based Project Control – Provide the capability to model a capital project from start to decommissioning, and to monitor and control progress of the project based on the model. – Modeling Framework – Develop a common architecture for creation and development of accurate and comprehensive simulation of all objects and actions over the entire life cycle of the project/facility/structure. – Sharable Cost Models – Develop accurate, shareable capital project cost models that are compatible with the master facility simulation modeling framework and integrated with project design and management systems. – Time & Execution Model – Standardize and enhance existing planning and scheduling systems to create an integrated execution model for capital projects, including automated approved audit trails integrated with payroll and accounting systems eliminating payment delays for work performed. – Integration of Modeling System for Intelligent Project Management – Develop mechanisms for linking the master facility simulation model to external information sources to enable real-time, model-based control of the construction process. • Goal 4: Real-Time Project Data Analysis – Provide the ability to automatically track technical, cost, and schedule progress in real time and analyze status data for deviations from plan. – Remote Monitoring & Reporting – Develop the capability to automatically sense and monitor activities at remote sites (e.g., construction site, subcontractor facilities) and track progress against the baseline design and plan. – Deviation Detection – Develop a modeling methodology for automatic recognition and characterization of project deviations.

5.1.3 Scope Management Vision: Scope management will be facilitated by automatic analysis of the impact of all changes on project functions and processes. The project management system will provide the historical data, lessons learned, and analysis to detect and handle changes at the earliest possible stage and to minimize changes later in the life cycle. Alternatives to accommodate changes will be evaluated based on all available business and technical information, and accurate change data will be automatically and securely disseminated to all affected systems, processes, and stakeholders. In the future, scope management will be accomplished through a comprehensive problem assessment and change management system integrated into the overall project management system. The work plan cre-

January 2003

5-5


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE ated in the project planning and design phase will be a complete simulation model of the work to be performed, including the time and cost projections for each task, structured to present information at any level of detail. The master facility simulation model will be the control mechanism for all work. Comparison of task performance against the plan will quickly reveal where errors or ambiguities in design have created conflicts, or reveal work that is out of scope (not just out of tolerance), and alert management for resolution to minimize the impact. Analytical tools linked to the model will enable the design team to quickly understand the impact of scope changes, illuminating effects of a potential change downstream in the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the project/facility life cycle. Alternatives will be presented and evaluated by the model in a trade-off environment, enabling selection of best solutions based on consideration of all criteria – business, technical, regulatory, etc. The impacts and ripple effects of changes on engineering, procurement, materials, and labor will be readily understood, the model (schedule and cost) will be modified to reflect the new plan, and all changes will be communicated to affected parties and systems. Changes will not be managed as “additional” work, but will become mainstream to project execution. Even though scope changes will be managed efficiently, in the future they will be managed in the early conceptual iterations and significantly reduced as a source of perturbation once construction is underway. The ability to rapidly iterate different ideas – with all stakeholders in the loop – will enable the design team to deliver the construction execution team a fully fleshed-out design and plan that are validated at every level. This will eliminate many of the downstream scope changes typical in current projects. In addition, future facilities will be designed and built to be flexible and reconfigurable enough that many changes in facility functionality (driven by market conditions or world events) can be accommodated without major upheavals in the work plan. Goals & Requirements for Scope Management • Goal 1: Predictive Systems for Early Problem Identification – Develop systems that can analyze and compare ongoing activities against the approved project plan and objectives, and recognize and quantify variances and out-of-scope activities. – Project Information Database – Develop an industry-wide shared knowledge base of relevant project scoping data to serve as baseline for capital project planning and execution. – Knowledge-Based Project Scope Modeling – Develop a modeling capability to automatically compare similar historical experience to current project activities, to detect potential scope mismatches and identify opportunities for improvement. – Performance Tracking & Assessment System – Develop mechanisms for automated monitoring and reporting of performance against the project plan, comparison of actual performance against the plan, and identification of any variances that exceed predetermined cost/schedule threshold values. • Goal 2: Distributed Change Management – Provide and implement systems that integrate and communicate change management actions across the entire project/facility supply network. – Global Change Management Protocols – Develop, drawing on current best practices, a uniform change management process model that will become a de facto standard for all companies and organizations involved in capital projects. – Change Management Modules – Develop change management modules that are plug-and-play compatible with existing engineering and project management systems and which can be implemented at low cost, thus supporting the integration of small and medium-sized companies into an interconnected global supply network for capital projects.

January 2003

5-6


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Goal 3: Automated Change Management & Communication System – Provide systems that automatically inform all stakeholders about changes and associated impacts; which support collaborative decisions for problem resolution; and which deliver all supporting information (e.g. engineering, procurement, and manpower impacts) in customized packages to the right people and systems. – Seamless Integration of Project Information Systems – Develop mechanisms and protocols for seamless integration between project management systems, financial systems, and all other affected systems (e.g., Quality, HR, procurement, HSE) to enable automated generation of all needed change management information. – Decision Support Tools for Change Management – Develop interactive assessment tools to determine the appropriateness of changes and to support evaluation and selection of the best alternatives.

5.1.4 Project/Facility Quality Management Vision: Conformance to requirements and design intent will be the automatic result of defect-free and standards-compliant capital project design and construction. In the future, quality performance in capital projects will be the automatic result of executing a defect-free design in a compliant fashion. Compliance with design and construction standards will not be the result of a dictated process, but the result of an industry consensus industry to set clear, comprehensive standards and metrics for different applications. Thus, there will be no ambiguity among project stakeholders as to what level of quality is acceptable for a project element. Design and planning systems will have the intelligence to automatically “engineer out” quality problems, and will output a comprehensive plan for construction execution. The plan will define every needed operation, and eliminate all operations that do not add value. All materials and other resources will be identified and tracked, and all processes will be monitored and in control. Smart sensors will monitor work execution, alerting workers and managers in real time to any nonconformance to plans, specifications, or standards. Automated, secure inspection systems will verify quality in-process for critical items such as structural elements, welds/joinings, and wiring, enabling problems to be fixed on the spot and thus preventing downstream rework. Goals & Requirements for Quality Management • Goal 1: Automated Quality Assurance & Quality Control – Develop automated QA/QC systems and integrate these systems into the project management system to monitor and track compliance to work plans, specifications, and standards. – Quality Metrics & Standards for Capital Projects – Develop industry-consensus quality metrics and standards and make these available electronically, enabling automatic comparison of work against the metrics. Universally adopt existing best-practice standards, ”decertify” lesser standards, and fill critical voids with appropriate standards to assure quality of designs, materials, and workmanship. – Automated Quality Status & Compliance Reporting – Provide automatic mechanisms for continuous feedback of performance against quality metrics and generation of necessary reports. • Goal 2: Defect-Free Capital Projects – Achieve defect-free design, materials and workmanship for all capital projects. – Defects Analysis & Understanding – Conduct a study to analyze historical project information to highlight root causes (predictability) of defects, document the most prevalent causes, and recommend actions to eliminate such sources of quality problems. – Assured Readiness & Quality of Materials – Develop systems that provide automatic verification of construction materials and work against defined quality standards, including the ability to identify any variations – including those that are within defined tolerances.

January 2003

5-7


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – Defect-Free Materials – Develop new and enhanced construction materials that are cost-effective and outperform existing materials because of their assured quality. Develop the capability to costeffectively detect any defects in construction materials and to test compliance with material standards.

5.1.5 Licensing & Regulatory Vision: All capital projects will be designed, executed and operated in full compliance with all applicable licensing and regulatory requirements. Requirements will be incorporated into the design rules for the project and will be autonomously monitored by the design system to ensure compliance as the design evolves. This capability – aided by continuous connectivity to the management systems of regulatory agencies – will simplify and expedite licensing and regulatory processes, enabling projects to move swiftly from planning to design to construction to operations. In the future, intelligent planning and design systems will draw on past experience and a complete knowledge base of regulations and licensing requirements to assure regulatory compliance at each step of the project, with special emphasis on safety/security requirements. When the parameters of the project (i.e., type of facility or structure and site) are initially defined, the project management system will automatically extract applicable regulatory requirements and program them into the project requirements set. Necessary prompts and data-generation steps will be automatically loaded into the system and scheduled. As the planning and design effort progresses, the system will automatically generate technical data packages and analytical reports for oversight agencies, who will be able to download the data directly or review it on-line to complete their approval processes. In the ideal state, regulatory agency staff will participate as full stakeholders in every project from project inception, functioning as core members of the project team. This will enable early identification and resolution of issues that cannot be addressed with technological tools. As the project team develops the design and plan, the system will automatically check compliance against requirements and alert the team to potential problems. Drawing on a rich base of captured knowledge and experience, automated advisors will recommend solutions and alternatives to resolve issues. This can include recommendation of alternative materials or processes, or adjustment of safety or risk margins. The system will automatically monitor the day-to-day construction and O&M activities, flag noncompliances, and advise users in handling non-normal conditions. The system will also evaluate the impacts of anticipated or potential changes in the regulatory and licensing environment. This includes the ability to assess and document the effects of deviations and waivers, supporting negotiations with oversight bodies. Goals & Requirements for Licensing & Regulatory • Goal 1: Streamlined, Knowledge-Driven Approval Processes – Develop streamlined regulatory interface processes and automated approval systems that interface directly with the project planning and design knowledge base to enable fast, thorough review of required submittals and rapid resolution of issues. – Improved Regulatory Process Review – Work with regulatory organizations to streamline their review processes and documentation requirements, and assure the compatibility of automated review processes with automated compliance support systems. – Approval Knowledge Base – Develop on-line, interactive systems and rule sets that apply knowledge of regulations, compliance options, and templates to facilitate the review and approval of compliance documents and support efficient, cost-effective permitting.

January 2003

5-8


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Goal 2: Compliance Tracking Systems – Provide an interactive system enabling regulatory compliance requirements determination, assessment, communication, approval, and tracking for the capital projects industry. – Regulatory Assessment System – Develop a system to assess the requirements definition for a proposed facility or structure for regulatory requirements and automatically identify licensing and regulatory compliance issues that need to be addressed for the specific project. – Compliance Knowledge Base – Develop a knowledge base that makes accessible the relevant regulations, laws, codes, standards, and best practices for different types of facilities. – Regulatory Design Advisor – Develop a Regulatory module for project design systems that automatically performs compliance-checking as the design evolves, alerts the design team to issues, recommends corrections based on captured knowledge, automatically generates and disseminates technical data packages for approval by oversight agencies, and prompts project team members and oversight bodies when specific actions are required. • Goal 3: Automated Real-Time Sampling & Compliance Reporting – Develop sensors, analytical methods, and simulation capabilities to automate and document the process of compliance assurance. – Process Compliance Instrumentation & Sensing – Develop advanced sensors and real-time product/process/waste sampling and analytical techniques to evaluate construction and facility processes to ascertain compliancy of operations. – In-Process Compliance Verification – Develop integrated inspection, monitoring, and checkoff systems that oversee work in progress; verify compliance with codes, standards, and applicable regulations; and flag nonconformances for corrective action as they occur. – Automated Compliance Reporting – Develop simulation capabilities and knowledge-based systems to develop required documentation and data feeds to appropriate regulatory agencies.

5.1.6 Financial/Business Management Vision: Seamlessly integrated stakeholder business systems will be automatically updated with project information to provide accurate project costs, cost status, risk assessment, and ROI calculations to support investment and financial management decisions. The future capital project enterprise’s financial management system will seamlessly capture, integrate, and analyze data from the project and from external sources to accurately estimate project costs, track expenditures vs. plan, and perform various cost comparison and ROI calculations. Unification and standardization of cost codes across the industry will enable all companies to integrate financial information (particularly estimates) easily and accurately. Cost experience (e.g., time/labor standards) will be widely shared – with appropriate anonymity to protect competitive positioning – to greatly improve precision in estimating. This will be especially valuable early in the project planning stages, where accurate scoping is essential to obtaining the concurrence of project stakeholders on risk/reward sharing, contingencies, and financing requirements. A “live” cost model will be an integral part of the master simulation for every project. The cost model, starting as a template for a standard project type (e.g., bridge, building, stadium, power plant, factory, process facility) will be automatically populated and updated as the project plan and design evolve. The model will accommodate virtually unlimited levels of detail, enabling accurate and realistic cost targets to be set for make/buy decisions and competitive procurement. The model will be updated as bids are competed and accepted, and as changes occur in scope or labor/material pricing. The system will also track global material/commodity prices to assist in making timely purchasing decisions to take best advantage of market fluctuations.

January 2003

5-9


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The cost model will provide a complete work breakdown structure (WBS) for the entire project, and actual labor/material/other costs will be automatically entered as they are incurred. Labor reporting and accounts receivable/payable systems will immediately feed actuals into the project management system, enabling managers at all levels to have continuous daily visibility of financial performance. Any variance will be flagged automatically for review and disposition, and the system will draw on captured enterprise knowledge to recommend the best corrective actions, and to help assure that corrective actions will not have unacceptable downstream consequences. The improved ability to understand and control costs will greatly mitigate the risk of contingencies, which will be calculated based on realistic and fact-based risk assessment and updated across the course of the project. Estimated return on investment (ROI) will be automatically computed, compared to planned ROI, and used to evaluate business models and future investment decisions. Goals & Requirements for Financial/Business Management • Goal 1: Integrated Stakeholder Business Systems – Develop the capability to integrate all project stakeholders’ business systems in a secure shared environment with appropriate access and control tailored to the business relationship. – Common Financial Vocabulary & Cost Codes – Develop and standardize an industry- wide set of common definitions and metrics for all business and financial operations, including universal cost codes for every type of work, skill, and item of material. – Automated Business Systems Interface – Establish standards and automated communication mechanisms for interface and interoperability of financial systems among all project stakeholders to eliminate payment delays for work performed based on automated approvals and auditable data records. • Goal 2: Global Project Cost Models – Provide a suite of comprehensive cost models that can be used as a starting point for any type of capital project and linked to all sources of information to provide a completely accurate and current view of all cost elements and drivers. – Generic Capital Project Cost Model – Develop and validate a generic cost model structure and supporting information framework applicable to any type of capital project, including defined linkages for capture of actual costs from project management and reporting systems, and enabling integration into master simulation models for project execution. – Validated Project Cost Model Suite – Using the generic cost model, develop and validate projectspecific cost models and templates for individual project types – e.g., bridge, tunnel, building, power plant, chemical process facility. • Goal 3: Automated Contingency/Risk Assessment – Provide an automated capability to quantify project risks; calculate appropriate technical, cost, and schedule contingencies; and update the risk assessment and contingency margins over the course of project execution. – Automated Project Risk Assessment – Develop the capability to automatically identify, represent, characterize, and incorporate potential risk information into the project management system. – Complex Project Risk Assessment – Develop tools for automated analysis of multiple interacting risk factors, delivering a unified risk assessment and recommendations for mitigation. – Real-Time Risk Identification & Assessment – Develop analytical systems that collect information about project execution and perform real-time risk assessments based on new factors (e.g., terrorist threats and other catastrophic risk vectors outside the effective control of the project or facility), providing appropriate alerts to changes in the risk status and actions that threaten progress against the baseline plan.

January 2003

5-10


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Goal 4: Verification of Project Financial Performance – Provide the capability to automatically and comprehensively update and report the estimated cost and ROI for the project on demand, based on real-time performance data and costs, along with any variances. – Real-Time Performance Capture – Develop a system to automatically capture and compile realtime operating data (actual costs incurred) and business forecasting data, measure progress against targets and key performance indicators (KPIs), and promptly report variances and trends to project management for resolution.

5.1.7 Safety, Health, & Environment Vision: Capital construction projects will be conducted in an environment that proactively engineers out and mitigates all types of health, safety, and environmental hazards and threats. This will be achieved by systems that support and guide project personnel in HSE-compliant operations in all aspects of project planning, design, construction, O&M, and life-cycle support. In the future, assured health, safety, and environmental (HSE) protection will be designed into all capital construction projects. Intelligent advisors will guide designers from project inception in avoiding and minimizing inherently hazardous materials and practices, engineering out vulnerabilities, and in assuring adequate safety margins in process systems and facility designs. Insensitivity/immunity to catastrophic events will likewise be a primary design driver, as will the ability to “degrade gracefully” under potential failure modes. The master simulation model for construction execution will draw on captured experience and best practices to optimize work plans down to the lowest level for safe execution in compliance with all regulations and standards. This includes automated design and specification of shoring and bracing, handling and routing of suspended loads through precisely mapped hazard zones, isolation and assured secure containment of hazardous substances (e.g., flammables and toxics) during and between use with appropriate ventilation, and similar issues. Potential failure modes will be identified, with an emphasis on reducing and, where possible, eliminating in-process vulnerabilities to accidents or deliberate acts of sabotage. The result will be a facility/structure design and a stepwise construction execution plan that are inherently safe and secure and which, if executed according to plan, will experience zero accidents, zero hazardous exposures, and zero release of undesirable substances to air, ground, or water. Pervasive sensors and monitoring systems built into the job site and completed facility will serve as unobtrusive overseers, assuring that all work is done safely according to plan and providing comprehensive intrusion and tampering detection. Individual workers, outfitted with RF or GPS sensor tags (to indicate their location and movement) and personal communication devices, will be alerted to any unsafe condition or action – such as walking under a suspended load, overloading a crane, entering an area requiring safety gear, or starting a task for which one does not have the right training or certification. The site management system will have sufficient built-in intelligence to respond quickly and correctly to any incidents, summoning emergency response teams and shutting down affected equipment, systems, or activities to mitigate cascade effects. First respondents to incidents will be able to remotely download site state data en route for effective response, and immediately tap into local communications to direct on-site personnel as well as communicate with off-site command authority and emergency service agencies. While it is impossible to guard against all forms of human error, random chance, or deliberate threat, deep understanding of HSE requirements and issues built into systems responsible for project management, construction execution, and O&M will radically reduce both the potential for incidents, and help mitigate their effects.

January 2003

5-11


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Just-in-time job support will provide built-in training and certification assurance to help ensure safe operations. Safety management systems will focus on eliminating unsafe behavior and conditions. Goals & Requirements for Safety, Health, & Environment • Goal 1: HSE Monitoring & Response Systems – Develop systems for automated detection, avoidance, and communication of HSE issues, and for rapidly responding to and assisting in handling of incidents. – HSE Hazard Detection Systems – Develop sensors for detecting and monitoring underground utility lines, structural overloading, hazardous/toxic substances, pressure vessels, suspended loads, vehicular and pedestrian traffic (both authorized and, particularly, unauthorized), and other possible HSE threats during construction execution and facility operation. – Positive Identification, Location, & Tracking Systems – Develop sensors and communications tools enabling continuous tracking of the location and status of all personnel and resources on the job site. The system must provide the ability to identify when individuals move onto the job site and into potential hazard areas, and take appropriate action – such as autoverification of authorizations, required training, and deployment of safety gear and requisite support. – Automated Protection Systems – Develop automated failsafe systems that ensure safe operation by 1) monitoring for safe conditions (e.g., power shutoff before an operation can begin); 2) assuring operator fitness for work (e.g., operator identity verification and alertness sensors keyed to equipment starters); 3) allowing operations to proceed only when conditions are deemed safe; and 4) immediately halting any operation that generates an unsafe condition (e.g., worker passing under a suspended load or into the immediate path of a vehicle, or outgas/release of steam or toxic substance). – Automated Emergency Response – Develop automated emergency response systems for individual accidents and catastrophic events, providing automatic safe shutdown of affected operations, coordinated response of emergency services, and rapid, reliable communication of information (data from MSDS database, etc.) to the public and other stakeholders. Automatically generate a site status report of equipment states, personnel locations, and other critical data for first respondents. – First Responder Support System – Provide secure wireless communications capabilities that enable first responders to download needed status information and supporting data en route, including HAZMAT inventories, floor plans, the day’s site personnel roster, and live streaming video of the scene. This includes the capability for first responders to communicate with site supervision and project command authority both en route on on-scene, and remote electronic access to failover devices enabling cutoff of systems such as explosive gas feeds and high-voltage sources. • Goal 2: Proactive HSE Systems – Develop HSE systems that monitor for potential unsafe/improper acts and take measures to assure that safe, correct procedures are followed. – Capital Project HSE Knowledge Base – Establish a shared industry knowledge base, focused particularly at small and medium businesses, which provides easy-to-understand information about HSE issues such as major safety incident vectors, threat modes, and trends (common root causes), training standards, best practices, and MSDSs. – Comprehensive HSE Audit Trail & Archive – Develop a system that automates incident tracking and reporting, characterizes incidents against the HSE knowledge base, and captures the reports for analysis and lessons learned. – HSE Experience Learning System – Develop an intelligent system that analyzes the knowledge base of archived safety incidents, determines probable root causes of injury or environmental insult, and distills out “lessons learned” concerning trends and safety pitfalls, including practices or processes that should be altered.

January 2003

5-12


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – Design for HSE – Develop the necessary knowledge and mechanisms to incorporate safety and environmental concerns into the design of capital construction equipment, processes, and projects, creating cost-effective safety systems (such as intelligent seatbelts, airbags, and lifts, and positive identification and location systems) to eliminate preventable incidents. – HSE Design Advisor – Develop an intelligent safety module that functions as a core element of the project design system to identify HSE flaws and potential problems in the facility/structure design as it evolves, and recommends design changes to engineer out these problems on the front end. • Goal 3: Realistic HSE Assessment, Awareness, & Training – Provide and broadly disseminate information that clearly defines the realities of HSE in the workplace and supports a firm industry-wide commitment to preventing accidents, incidents, and environmental insults. – Model HSE Program – Study and document the return on investment of leading industrial HSE programs, and use the results to develop a “gold standard” program applicable and tailorable for any kind of capital project. – Improved HSE Awareness – Secure support from oversight agencies and conduct a continuing industry-wide awareness campaign that focuses on the wisdom and benefits of good HSE practice in the capital projects workplace, and less on rote compliance. – Improved HSE Training – Develop standard training modules for the capital projects industry that speak the language of the industry and deliver the message in a creative and effective way tailored for different (language, culture, etc.) industry audiences. – Automated HSE Training – Integrate HSE training and check-off procedures into project management systems to assure that every employee is aware of the hazards of jobs to be performed, understands the procedures for proper execution, and follows those procedures.

January 2003

5-13


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

5.2 PROJECT/FACILITY DESIGN

5.2.1 Facility/Structure Design Vision: An integrated and automated life-cycle design environment guided by an experienced human interface will deliver a construction-ready detailed design and execution plan based on business and technical requirements and drawing on a rich base of captured knowledge including lessons learned, experience, and domain expertise. The environment will support customer input and trade-offs and multiple business decision points, require only one-time data entry, and integrate all stakeholders securely across the supply network. Future project and facility designs will be produced by automated, integrated systems and optimized to best meet the needs of the owners and other stakeholders. The design system will be launched by the specification of qualitative and quantitative requirements. It will apply captured knowledge, modeling and simulation tools, and optimization engines to automatically create the best solutions for all elements of the design, operating either completely autonomously or with stakeholders in the loop. It will enable planners and designers to rapidly iterate through “what if” scenarios in response to changing technical or business requirements, such as the need to respond to new intelligence on evolving terrorist threats. Drawing on the total enterprise knowledge base, the system will quickly create a complete design package ready for permitting, procurement, and construction execution. The design system will be seamlessly and securely connected across the supply network, enabling all partners to contribute as integral members of the team in a “system of systems” environment. Design baselines will be captured in a comprehensive facility simulation model that automatically “extrudes” the detailed final design with associated cost and time parameters and planning information such as bill of material, labor and skill mix requirements, sources of supply, staging plans, and technical data packages for permitting.

January 2003

5-14


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The resulting radical reductions in design time and cost will enable the design team to focus its resources on innovation and optimization of the solution, which in turn will reduce total cost of ownership and enhance facility operability, maintainability, security, safety, sustainability, and similar factors. Security engineering will be enabled by a powerful complement of design tools. Specialized simulation engines will automatically analyze facility and process designs to identify failure modes and points of vulnerability, and tap the national knowledge base to take advantage of the latest advances in design for secure facilities that are “hardened” to possible threats – including acts of sabotage as well as physical attack. Critical vulnerability data will be securely protected against unauthorized access, and positive identity verification systems will provide a total audit trail of all accesses to sensitive project design information. Goals & Requirements for Facility/Structure Design • Goal 1: Robust Project/Facility Design – Provide design systems that deliver “wideband” designs which are inherently safe, secure, resilient, and efficient; adaptable for change; and have the capability to automatically change all affected elements when a design parameter is changed. – Flexible & Reconfigurable Design – Develop systems to create facilities with reconfigurable designs that minimize the need for design changes by accommodating flexibility in the design consistent with cost and performance targets. – Resilient, Fail-Safe Facility Design – Develop design tools that support creation, analysis, and optimization of facility, process system, and structure designs for resistance to catastrophic events, immunity to threat vectors, and which degrade gracefully under thoroughly characterized failure modes. Provide mechanisms for sharing related design innovations rapidly across industry while providing close security of vulnerability information. – Systems of Systems Design – Provide tools that support the system-of-systems approach to design, where each subsystem or element of the facility or structure design is compatible and interoperable with all other design components, assuring that the end product of the project is totally optimized for its intended use in all respects – functionality, performance, affordability, maintenance and support, etc. • Goal 2: Shared, Secure Design Data Availability – Provide capability for all needed project design data to be “published” (made available to authorized users) in accordance with rigorous standards for data security and integrity. – Distribution of Design Information – Develop standard interconnections between the design system and the project management system, providing the capability to access all design information and distribute that information as needed, where needed. – Definition of Information Needs – Identify all data/information types needed to support design of various classes of capital facility, identify information that is now available, and define strategies to fill the voids. – Data Sharing Strategy – Based on the evaluation of data needs, availability of needed data, and relevant standards, create a plan for data capture, storage, protection, retrieval, and accurate transparent exchange. – Verification of Shared Data – Establish mechanisms for validation and verification of all relevant design data for the capital projects industry, including its supply networks. – Shared Design Database – Establish and populate a shared industry database/repository with data/information of value, and provide mechanisms for access and management with appropriate security.

January 2003

5-15


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – Incentives for Data Sharing – Establish a cooperative structure to assure that companies large and small will be incentivized to contribute useful non-proprietary data to the data repository. – Interoperability Tools for Integrating Data – Establish and implement interoperability tools that assure secure access to all design data regardless of how or where the data exists. – Security & Controls for Integrated Data Environment – Establish a secure environment for controlled data access that will protect design data in storage, in access, and in transfer to and from users. • Goal 3: “Threat Centric” Design – Develop tools that support evaluation of threats (risks), support the selection of an appropriate risk level, and ensure that designs are responsive to the defined risk level. – Threat-Based Design Guidelines – Develop guidelines for design based on categorized threat and risk assessments, and provide information needed to support designs compliant with defined threat standards. – Threat Assessment – Develop advisory systems to assist the user in determining the proper threat level and in applying the guidelines appropriate for that assessment. – Threat Centric Design – Develop advisory systems that support designs that are fully compliant with best practices for the level of threat determined in the assessment. • Goal 4: Shared Knowledge Repository – Provide a shared knowledge repository that assures that project design data, information, and knowledge are available to all who are authorized for access, from any location or platform. This goal should be addressed in concert with the preceding goal for Shared, Secure Design Data Availability. – Repository Design – Evaluate current best practices for design of knowledge repositories in industry and government, and adopt the best architecture for the capital projects knowledge repository. – Conventions for Knowledge Management – Develop and publish standards for population and management of the knowledge repository. – Business Strategy for Population of the Repository – Develop a business plan that makes a clear case for industry to support population of the knowledge repository by providing design knowledge, best practices, and other information assets. – Homeland Security Design/Response Information and Knowledge – Establish a single source repository for Homeland Security information needed by the capital projects industry. This information source should support risk assessments, design for specific risk levels for different classes of facility, and best-practice design for security/safety and emergency response. – Regulatory Compliance Knowledge Base – Provide open access to both national and regional information to reduce or eliminate the delays and uncertainties associated with regulatory compliance. • Goal 5: Scenario-Based Conceptual Design – Provide a conceptual project design capability that links to the project planning system to support creation and evaluation of various design options and optimization of the baseline design around selected criteria. Include the capability to integrate modeling and simulation systems and other analytical tools with knowledge/data sources to support the progression from preferences, to requirements, to design options. – Virtual Cockpits – Develop a virtual collaboration environment enabling stakeholders to interact with the automated design system to quickly develop, visualize, and evaluate different design solution approaches.

January 2003

5-16


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – Integrated Modeling and Simulation Suite – Provide the capability to interactively evaluate options for capital project designs through use of cost-effective, accurate, easy-to-use, and fast modeling and simulation tools. • Goal 6: Automated Intelligent Design System – Provide an integrated system that interprets business and technical requirements and specifications to produce a series of designs at progressively increasing detail, satisfying user-defined requirements and enabling tradeoff analyses for optimization. Provide the capability to apply knowledge, human expertise, and advanced M&S-based design tools to automatically generate all design-related information, in the correct format and customized to the needs of each stakeholder. – Standard Formats for Design Advisors – Develop standard formats and structures that utilize standard rule representations to assure compatibility of all design advisory systems. – Domain-Specific Design Advisors – Develop domain-specific design advisors that assess requirements, process captured knowledge, and guide the creation of facility/structure designs optimized for performance, affordability, security, safety, and other pertinent factors. – Integration of Design Advisors – Integrate the domain-specific design advisors into increasingly larger and more complex systems. Apply these systems in pilot projects by industry sector – e.g., highways and bridges, process plants, service facilities, etc. – Enterprise-Wide Integrated Modeling & Simulation System – Develop a connected environment of powerful, high-fidelity modeling and simulation modules that run in real time and can be launched from any location as part of any design process, delivering immediate evaluation of proposed options. – Homeland Security Design Advisors – Develop knowledge-based systems that assist the user in determining the appropriate design alternatives based on the threat assessment and automate the inclusion of design features for assured safety and security within the threat envelope. – Designed-In Response – Develop advisory systems that, based on the knowledge of the project/facility/system design, analyze emergency scenarios and automatically create optimized emergency response plans for each scenario. – Regulatory Compliance Design Advisor – Develop knowledge-based advisory systems that use this information to automatically evaluate designs for regulatory compliance, and which guide designers in resolving compliance issues. • Goal 7: Enablers for Automated Design – Develop and deploy technologies and information assets that support the operation of automated design systems. – Automated Integration of Business & Design Rules – Create rule sets and standard work procedures for all business and technical design considerations, including regulations, standards, and codes, that can support earlier and accurate business analyses for determining go/no go parameters and buy/joint venture/build decisions. – Standardized Electronic Building Codes – Develop tools to translate text-based building codes into electronic format, enabling designs to be automatically checked for code compliance – Legacy Data Reuse – Create and maintain a shared, industry-wide repository of historical design data, past project performance, and life-cycle data to enable efficient reuse of legacy design data and incorporation of lessons learned in the development of future designs. – Reusable Design & Forecasting – Provide secure access to past designs to aid in establishing a design baseline and performing risk assessments for new projects, and which can provide accurate cost estimates based on previous project data.

January 2003

5-17


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – Automated Analysis of Historical Data & Metrics – Develop mechanisms to incorporate knowledge and analysis of historical designs to enable baseline comparisons, evaluations, and validations of design options. – Materials and Methods Data Management – Develop and provide access to information that characterizes materials and methods for assured and predictable performance in capital projects. – Library of Components – Provide detailed data concerning common components (materials, products, tools, etc.) used in capital projects, including all information needed for selection and utilization of components in design and procurement. – Automated Change Propagation System – Develop the capability to automatically propagate design changes through all portions of the design, project management, and other business systems, and automatically generate alerts when the effect of a change creates a nonconformance (technical, cost, or schedule) in any other element of the project. • Goal 8: Life-Cycle Design Support Systems – Provide knowledge bases and an intelligent design advisor to reconcile legacy codes, standards, systems, materials, and practices in design of facility/structure upgrades, refurbishments, renovations, expansions, and similar life-cycle actions. – Digital Design/Construction Codes & Standards – Develop a knowledge base of machineinterpretable digital design and construction codes and standards applicable to upgrade, refurbishment, and renovation of capital facilities, including product definitions, material properties, etc., and providing means for feedback of experience to standards-setting bodies. – Digital Best Practices for Upgrade and Refurbishment – Develop a knowledge base of machineinterpretable digital design and construction best practices and solution alternatives able to be applied and tailored (e.g. for local climate and seismic conditions) by automated design systems. – Global Knowledge Net for Upgrade and Refurbishment – Develop mechanisms for integration of, and global access to, international capabilities, expertise, and experience for upgrade, refurbishment, and renovation of capital facilities. – Digital Best Practices for Historical and Cultural Preservation – Develop a knowledge base of historical/cultural preservation requirements, techniques, and lessons learned, including costs and standardized codes. • Goal 9: Support for Master Facility Simulation Model – Define interface requirements and design subsystem functionality specifications that support creation, extension, and use of a single master facility simulation model and the basis for all design activities. – Model/Application Integration Framework – Develop interface standards for CAD models and analysis applications enabling all constituent models, underlying data, and supporting applications to be integrated and accessible though a single visual interface. – Design Applications Toolset – Work with the technology vendor community to adapt existing tools and develop new tools to provide a comprehensive, end-to-end project design capability that is fully compatible with the master simulation model concept.

January 2003

5-18


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

5.3 PROCUREMENT & CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS

5.3.1 Procurement & Staging Vision: A globally integrated supply network will securely deliver stock and custom assemblies and materials just in time for their respective construction steps, eliminating the need for on-site storage. Project and product information will be self-synchronizing, accurate, and complete, and yield optimized procurement work packages. Automated procurement systems will coordinate just-in-time delivery. Standardized construction elements and facilities will be “catalog” items designed for rapid build. Demand-based product flow and lean operations will be hallmarks of the procurement and staging functions for capital projects. Accurate electronic procurement packages, including 3-D product definitions and material properties, of all components to be manufactured and materials to be provided will be output from the design system and delivered to potential vendors and fabricators along with target cost and schedule requirements. A global electronic procurement network will automatically identify and solicit qualified bidders and support evaluation of source capabilities and assured ability to deliver. The project management system will interface with the respective suppliers’ management systems to maintain continuous visibility of progress in manufacture/fabrication and order fulfillment (including delivery to site), enabling the project managers to identify any schedule or quality issues as soon as they arise. This will enable the project team to attack supplier problems before they impact the master project schedule. The master schedule, linked to the multi-dimensional master project simulation model, will be preplanned and synchronized with the actual progress of the project. The site monitoring and tracking system will compare daily construction progress against the plan and coordinate the continuous flow of materials and assemblies to the point of need from integrated networks of qualified suppliers. The model will be selfsynchronizing for updates to reflect actual performance, while calling to light the cause of all deviations. The asset tracking and control system will enable every worker to instantly locate the resources they need and get them delivered to hand, ready for immediate use.

January 2003

5-19


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE All procurement, design, and planning data bearing on facility/structure safety and security vulnerabilities will be protected against unauthorized disclosure, with vendors and subcontractors able to access only the specific information they need to deliver the required products, materials, and supplies. Placement of security-sensitive contracts (e.g., orders for products that contribute any part of the security or safety infrastructure, such as alarm systems, emergency communication systems) will be limited to known, authorized sources. “Blind” purchase orders routed through third parties will be a preferred method to help assure that information about the specific security features of a sensitive facility or project is closely held. Goals & Requirements for Procurement & Staging • Goal 1: Integrated & Optimized Global Supply Network – Create a single, integrated and optimized global supply network enabling demand-driven acquisition and delivery of all resources required to accomplish construction operations on time and within budget, with no defects, no rework, no waste, and no downtime. – Data Standards & Infrastructure for Global Supply Web – Develop and validate a comprehensive systems engineering and operational model for an Internet-based global supply network, with detailed specifications for data formats, information content, security protocols, user interface, transaction protocols, and linkage to different business systems (design, procurement, scheduling, quality, etc.). – Accessible Product M o d e l s – Develop standardized, internet-accessible material/part/ component/equipment catalogs that can be interrogated remotely by the project design system to determine applicability of products to the project design, ascertain pricing and availability (quantity and schedule), and which can download a complete multi-D product model that can be plugged into the master project simulation model to support all engineering, construction, and project management processes. – Real-Time Source Data Access – Enable instantaneous and current access to cost, availability, capacity, quality, production/shipping status, and other vendor/supplier data as needed to support all aspects of project management and execution, with appropriate means for protecting competitive data, authorizing access, and tailoring information for the user. – Self-Authenticated, Automated Certification & Electronic Commerce – Develop standard, automated certification protocols and systems for all classes of construction project suppliers and buyers, including secure electronic commerce tools for processing contractual and financial transactions. – Supplier/Product Performance Feedback – Develop an industry-wide shared database of performance history and lessons learned about suppliers and products, with provision for validation of performance claims and adverse information such as security risks. • Goal 3: Automated Procurement – Provide an automated, real-time procurement system that is integrated with the design system to solicit input, analyze proposals or quotes, select best suppliers, and procure and track all materials, equipment, and resources required for the facility. – Automated Data Transfer to Procurement System – Establish automated data transfer capabilities to deliver requisite design output (drawings, BOM, specifications, and schedule) directly to the procurement system. – Neutral Format for Procurement Data Exchange – Establish specifications for data exchange in a neutral format that encompasses all members of the supply network. – Interoperability Tools for Procurement Data Exchange – Develop interoperability tools that are universally implemented across the supply network. – Security & Controls for Procurement Data Exchange – Establish a secure environment for transfer of and controlled access to, all proprietary and safety/security-sensitive procurement data.

January 2003

5-20


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – Interoperability & Integration of Procurement Systems – Develop standards and tools enabling design systems to interoperate with all systems related to procurement, including customized sequencing and scheduling, and real time tracking of material/service provider from supplier to construction site. • Goal 3: Autonomic Supply & Staging System – Develop a module for the project management system that automatically invokes required actions upon detection of a triggering event and manages the control and flow of resources. – Optimized Kitting Processes – Define work processes and standards that enable customizable pullbased delivery of optimized work package kits for standard types of capital project construction tasks. – Rapid, Assured Delivery Systems – Develop and validate concepts for highly reliable just-in-time and on-demand secure delivery of material, equipment, components, consumables, and other resources/assets to the construction site from off-site staging areas. – Secure Receiving Inspection – Develop and deploy systems, tools, and protocols that support rigorous receiving inspection and threat-screening of incoming products and materials – Autonomic Resource Feed – Develop and validate concepts for continuously feeding verified material, component, equipment, and consumables resources from suppliers and staging areas to point of need as they are drawn down, assuring that all specified resources are available on demand with no delays and monitoring the feeds against the master project plan to ensure accountability for, and control, of assets. – Secure Storage & Staging – Leverage available and emerging technologies to provide a low-cost means of positive surveillance and tracking of all materials and equipment in transit and in staging areas, enabling sources of tampering or loss to be immediately identified.

5.3.2 Manufacture/Fabrication Vision: Manufactured and fabricated construction products will be produced by highly automated processes utilizing lightweight, high-performance materials that enable affordable, reconfigurable facilities. Manufacturing/fabrication status will be polled continuously by local sensors to assure product integrity and update the master project simulation model and project management systems. In the future, all materials, parts, assemblies, and other components of a capital project will be specified completely and accurately in the design package. The optimum methods for satisfying the need for every item will be defined by automated design and management decision support systems, with an increasing percentage of components automatically assembled from kits or raw materials at the job site. Automated planning systems will draw on design data embedded in the master project simulation model to optimize manufacturing/fabrication instructions and schedules, eliminating the traditional uncertainty of custom products. Where the applications justify it, engineered materials and components will be configured in intelligent, self-monitoring and maintaining subassemblies. Because of the quality of the design and the assured quality of fabrication, no post-process inspection or rework will be required. Goals & Requirements for Manufacture and Fabrication • Goal 1: Improved Materials Engineering – Develop new, affordable, smart materials and components that support the vision of rapid-erecting and self-erecting facilities; reduce the cost to manufacture and fabricate materials and components; and reduce the cost to place, join, and install them with high labor productivity, zero waste, and zero rework. – New Engineering Standards – Develop comprehensive standards for the basic building elements required for rapid-erection approaches. Develop material, component, and system standards for accu-

January 2003

5-21


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE rate and unambiguous description and specifications for effective global communication of needs between engineering, procurement, and site management. – Material Utilization Simulation Models – Develop simulation tools for predictive material placement and utilization strategies and for evaluating alternate design scenarios during the engineering and planning phases of construction. – Improved Testing Methods & Approvals – Refine testing methods and approval processes to accelerate development of new materials and components, and provide constitutive databases to support the implementation of multi-D models. Develop improved failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis tools, accelerated testing methods for end-of-life failure mechanisms, and predictive models for life-cycle maintenance and repair. Develop uniform specification methods and standards for common industry databases and models. Develop testing methods for coatings and protective layer systems for corrosion, thermal, and other environmental transformation effects. • Goal 2: Enhanced Materials & Components – Develop and institutionalize new, affordable, smart materials and components that support the vision of rapid-erecting and self-erecting facilities; support needs for disaster resistance and graceful degradation under catastrophic stress; reduce the cost to manufacture and fabricate materials and components; and reduce the cost to place, join, and install them with high labor productivity, zero waste, and zero rework. – Materials Needs Assessment – Identify and characterize near- and long-term materials needs and concepts for the construction industry. Develop business cases for investments in material and process technologies that will increase labor productivity, reduce build cycle time and material costs, support Homeland Security needs for protection of infrastructure, and improve operational durability and maintainability. – Materials for Extended-Life, Disaster-Resistant, Reconfigurable Facilities & Structures – Conduct detailed analyses of idealized building systems and requirements to determine the optimum materials and technologies to support the concept of a low-cost, long-life, highly durable and reconfigurable structure or building. Apply science-based analysis tools to reverse-engineer materials needs to drive the research agenda for construction systems. – Lightweight Materials – Develop lightweight, high-strength, high-modulus materials and fabrication methods that enable low-cost assembly, maintenance, and ownership. Develop understanding of long-term life and failure modes and mechanisms of high-modulus materials and material systems such as woven fibers, textured materials, and their anisotropic behavior characteristics. Develop manufacturing and on-site assembly methods for lightweight materials. – Insensitive Materials – Develop reengineered and new materials that provide greatly improved resistance to fire, impact, structural strain/stress, corrosion, and similar extreme performance regimes. Engineer material failure modes for safety and graceful degradation – e.g., flame-resistant materials that minimize release of toxic gases when their ignition temperature is finally reached – Placed Materials – Develop placed materials with reduced and/or triggered curing time for rapid functionality and reduced overall build time. Develop materials and placement technologies that can be configured without the use of temporary forms and fixtures. Develop imbedded or integrated sensing methods and strategies for raw and processed materials and components. Investigate and develop self-repairing, smart materials for construction applications. Develop high-strength placed materials that provide required strength with much smaller and lighter layers. – Advanced Coatings & Protective Surfaces – Develop long-life coating systems and protectants that extend the operational life of construction materials and structures while minimizing routine repair and rework. Develop functionally reconfigurable materials and coatings and sensing for thermal, aesthetics, safety, environmental, and other adaptive applications.

January 2003

5-22


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Goal 3: Rapid, Low-Cost Specialty Fabrication – Provide design and manufacturing technologies and processes, and supporting business processes, that drastically reduce the time, cost, and complexity of acquiring specialty fabricated products from distributed job shops to support capital projects. – Capital Projects B2B Net for Specialty Fab Products – Apply electronic commerce technologies to connect project prime and support contractors with specialty fabricators, enabling rapid sourcing, contracting and electronic interchange of requirements and design data. – Fabrication Services Analysis – Conduct an industry-wide survey to baseline average time/cost/quality of capital project items commonly commissioned through specialty fabricators, and prioritize items where improved fabrication technologies and processes (e.g., net-shape forming) will offer the highest payoff in terms of improved quality capability, turnaround time, and cost. – Lean Fabrication Business Model – Based on the services analysis, define opportunities for lean fabrication and build a lean fabrication business model focused on capital projects industry requirements. – Fabrication Process Initiatives – Match the identified needs of the Fabrication Services Analysis task to best practices, cutting-edge advances, the lean fabrication model, and ongoing R&D in other manufacturing sectors and launch initiatives to 1) speed the adoption of high-priority process improvements in the capital projects specialty fabrication sector, and 2) encourage focusing of manufacturing R&D to attack areas where improvements are most needed by the capital projects industry.

5.3.3 Construction & Pre-Commissioning Vision: Automated, rapid-erecting structures requiring minimal site preparation will b e built without temporary construction systems and be de-skilled for minimal site labor using highly automated processes. Ultra-lightweight, smart, self-configuring materials and components will be emplaced without hold and cure time constraints, with zero waste, and no rework. Construction status information will be collected, processed, and relayed by site monitoring systems that feed the master project simulation model to provide a continuously updated view of progress and issues. The project site and build processes of the future will be managed, orchestrated, and engineered for minimal on-site labor and elimination of traditional serial workflows to reduce construction time to a fraction of today’s averages. Industry collaboration and networking will minimize the number of separate business units that must be managed to execute a construction project. Multi-dimensional project simulation models with links to real-time site data and information will provide accurate visualization of progress for optimized management of assets and labor; provide accurate documentation of as-built structure; and manage the flow of manufactured and fabricated material and components from the supply network to the project site. The project simulation model will be the underpinning of accurate as-built documentation for seamless handover/turnover to operation and maintenance. Structures will be designed for minimal site excavation and preparation with innovative foundation strategies that establish a secure ground interface, with minimization of underground utilities, structure, and facilities such that structures can be rapidly erected. On-site power generation using high-efficiency solar conversion technology and other alternative energy sources, zero-discharge water recycling, and allwireless communications will greatly reduce the need for external utility connections as well as enhance security, survivability, and disaster response. Construction sites will become more intelligent as material, components, fabrications, and people become elements of a “sensed” environment with linkages back to the master project simulation model. Rapiderecting structures that are highly engineered for placement, joining and assembly, and automated processes, will greatly reduce build time and cost as well as reduce craft labor skill requirements. New and enhanced families of materials with characteristics and attributes that enable rapid erection will emerge. Materials that do not require temporary systems for placement, provide high performance using

January 2003

5-23


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE only thin layers, have rapid cure and immediate functionality, and are self-configuring will be developed. Ultra lightweight, high-modulus materials and material systems will replace many traditional materials and processes, significantly reducing weight, time, and cost. Modularity, at the largest and smallest elements of a structure, will enable rapid build as well as affordable reconfigurability to maximize life cycle utility. Goals & Requirements for Construction & Pre-Commissioning • Goal 1: Intelligent Job Site – Develop a conceptual operational framework, business case, and definition of the technologies, methods, and practices required to enable and accelerate the deployment of intelligent, integrated job sites. – Business Case for Intelligent Job Site – Develop cost-based rationale for investment in systems that enable automation, sensing, tracking, monitoring and control, and security of capital project site operations, including cost, schedule, and resource savings potential, safety and security features, and resulting benefits to project stakeholders. – Intelligent Site Technology Requirements – Define technology gaps and research needs to deliver comprehensive capabilities to “wire” and integrate all aspects of construction, including linkages to site-external functions such as planning and business management. – Intelligent Site Pilots – Show through pilot demonstrations for selected small-scale construction projects that the intelligent job site is a feasible and beneficial concept. Document savings and benefits in order to refine and validate the business case for each technology element and for the integrated result. • Goal 2: Construction Knowledge Workforce – Develop a new workforce paradigm that optimizes the ability of different types of workers to make full use of captured knowledge, advanced information delivery mechanisms, and next-generation automated systems for project design, management, execution, operations, and life-cycle support. – Skills Redefinition – Define the capabilities and duties of future construction workers, including how they will work with intelligent systems and components. – Field Management Scheme – Define new roles and requirements for management in regard to the knowledge worker and intelligent job site of the future. – Worker Evolution – Define development, training, and lifelong learning strategies to “morph” today’s workers into the knowledge-enabled workers of the future. – Knowledge-Based Toolset Definition – Define the tools and interfaces that knowledge-enabled workers will need to accomplish their tasks. – Collaboration for Construction Workforce Evolution – Evolve new partnerships among industry/academia/government stakeholders in creating the new knowledge workforce. – Construction Knowledge Supply Network – Apply the principles of supply network management in partnership with unions, academia, industry, and government to pilot a “pull” system that assures the ability to meet the workforce needs of the industry. – Construction Knowledge Capture & Application Systems – Develop mechanisms to digitally capture the skills and knowledge of experienced construction personnel (e.g., skilled craftspersons and site managers) and make those assets available to those who need them. – Incentives & Rewards Redefinition – Redefine industry business models to enable construction workers to receive long-term benefits of their labor. • Goal 3: Automated, Rapid-Erecting Facilities – Develop design concepts, advanced materials, and construction systems and methods enabling fast, automated erection of facilities and structures. January 2003

5-24


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – New, Lightweight Materials & Components – Develop materials and components that transcend the limitations of those currently available in terms of strength, weight, constructability, and safety features. – Smart Materials & Components/Assemblies – Develop smart materials and assemblies that can sense and transmit information about their status, location, and condition, including the ability to self-correct or to invoke required maintenance and repair. – Reconfigurable Materials – Develop materials that can alter their shape or properties via sensing of external and internal conditions, such as walls that are flexible for transport but that become rigid for installation. – Automation Integrated into Materials – Develop materials and components that contain automated components that perform or support assembly and placement. – Model-Driven Construction Systems – Develop integration and control schemes and technologies enabling the master project simulation model to directly activate and control construction equipment with minimal human assistance or intervention. – Engineering for Automated Construction – Develop new engineering methods and standards that support highly automated, rapid construction methods, including requisite focus on safety and control. – New Connection Technologies & Methodologies – Expand on current trends in connection technology to allow components to mesh seamlessly via computer-driven fastening/connecting and activation mechanisms. – Standardized Construction Components – Significantly expand the standardization and integration compatibility of construction components, enabling “customization on the fly” via creative integration. – Low-Impact Site Prep – Develop new facility and utilities concepts and supporting engineering and construction techniques that minimize or eliminate requirements for underground work, minimize the need to adapt to existing site conditions, and that provide a complete environmental barrier preventing release of any waste to ambient air, ground, and water. – Improved Joining – Develop new materials and methodologies that allow faster assembly of components, requiring fewer on-site craft skills and equipment during assembly, and support highly engineered and automated rapid-erection designs and methods such as automated laser activated joining of steel structural members. – Zero Temporary Structures – Develop highly engineered erection methods that eliminate the need for the fabrication and handling of temporary systems such as scaffolding, material lifting and placement, and support. Develop materials that do not require temporary construction systems (e.g., forming or packing materials). – Intelligent, Interactive Construction Equipment & Systems – Develop new classes of construction equipment and systems (e.g., cranes, lifts, earth movers, pipefitters, autowelders, material handlers) with the onboard intelligence and flexibility to autonomously place and install materials and components, working in collaboration with different items of equipment and under human guidance and control. • Goal 4: Radically Advanced Construction Concepts – Explore and develop breakthrough technologies that support the ultimate vision of entirely self-constructing facilities and structures. – Programmable Nanomaterials & Nanoconstructors – Develop the technological basis for nanodevices that can be programmed with the complete design for a facility or structure, and which will

January 2003

5-25


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE then process raw material feedstocks to systematically build the facility or structure from the ground up and communicate real-time progress to the master project simulation model. – Biomimetic Materials, Structures, & Facility Systems – Develop the technological basis for materials, structures, and facility systems that monitor ambient conditions, loads, stresses, and requirements and autonomously “morph” – in a manner similar to a biological system – within specified control limits to optimize performance under changing conditions, including proactive response to fire, chemical/biological contamination, and other safety-critical events.

5.3.4 Startup/Commissioning & Handover Vision: A multi-D master simulation model, linked to the completed facility and systems and providing 100% accurate as-built documentation, will enable fast, trouble-free transition to operational status. Future structures and facilities will benefit from integrated multi-dimensional living simulation models that accurately capture as-built information down to the level of individual equipment and structures, and update themselves automatically to enable a rapid and seamless startup and commissioning for handover/turnover to the operations staff. Robustness and precision in design, in material and equipment, and in construction execution will avoid and systematically eliminate all technical sources of startup problems, and provide the information needed to train the incoming operations personnel. Self-diagnosing systems and pervasive sensing and monitoring of all process and equipment, coupled to facility command and control systems, will provide both on-the-fly troubleshooting and correction as well as predictive capabilities that enable rapid performance optimization during start-up and initial operations. The transition from construction to operations will simply be another step in the project plan. Goals & Requirements for Startup/Commissioning & Handover • Goal 1: Automated Readiness Certification – Provide project management system functions and interfaces that enable facilities and structures to be systematically verified as critical elements of work are completed at each stage of the project. – Sensors & Systems for In-Process Work Certification – Develop suites of low-cost sensors for all inspection-critical elements of the facility or structure that are able to measure completed work in progress against defined standards and specifications, verify conformance, detect anomalies, and issue alerts as required. – Uniform, Graded Standards for In-Process Work Certification – Develop global industry standards for certifying all types of mechanical/electrical/structural constructions, facilities, and facility systems, graded for applicability to different classes of projects (e.g., nuclear plant, chemical process facility, bridge, office building). – Automated As-Built Certification & Verification – Develop stand-alone systems able to scan and analyze a completed facility or structure or series of facility systems, then compare the results to the specified design as captured in the master project simulation model to certify conformance and identify any nonconformances. • Goal 2: Automated Startup Support – Provide means for the master project simulation model to generate all required documentation, operating instructions, maintenance procedures, safety procedures, training materials, and similar resources needed to prepare the incoming operations team to quickly move the completed facility to operational status. – Plug & Play Documentation – Develop universal industry standards for digital documentation of O&M, safety, and similar relevant subjects for all types and classes of materials, components, equipment, and systems, such that all required basic documentation can be instantly assembled into a facility-unique master operations guide that automatically parses and reorganizes content for any specific job or task, complete with all instructions, cautions, warnings, and hyperlinked supporting

January 2003

5-26


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE information. The documentation system shall interface with the project design system to extract technical data, drawings, and simulation models, enabling documentation to be built, integrated, and transformed automatically for reference and training purposes with zero redundant data entry. – Model Startup & Commissioning Plans – Develop a series of consensus industry best-practice startup and commissioning plans in digital form for different classes and types of capital facilities and structures, and develop an automated capability to query local regulatory/permitting bodies to automatically extract locale-unique requirements and integrate those into the plans. The startup/commissioning plan shall be an integral part of the master project simulation model to the extent that the plan will be finalized concurrent with the completion of the final facility design, then updated as any changes are made during construction. – Master Facility Controller – Develop sensors, effectors, and communication technologies enabling the completed master project simulation model to function as a master facility controller, initiating processes autonomously, under human guidance, or by advising and directing individual workers (as appropriate). Individual workers will be able to interact with the master controller via voice, data, and visual interfaces to command task initiation/performance and receive training and advice in a dynamic feedback loop that enables both personnel and systems to rapidly transition to certified operational status. This capability will also enable the facility systems and staff to respond quickly and surely to emergencies. – External Troubleshooting Linkages – Develop extensions to the master facility controller to provide direct and immediate communications between on-site operational staff and systems to off-site original equipment supplier technical support knowledge bases and personnel, to enable automated emergency response and human-assisted troubleshooting of problems that cannot be resolved on-site with existing resources.

5.3.5 Crosscutting Enablers for Construction Execution • Goal 1: Self-Synchronizing Virtual Models – Develop technologies for creation and management of self-synchronizing virtual process and structure models that have private, third party, and project components. – Enabling Tools for Self-Synchronizing Models – Develop or extend existing modeling and simulation tools to enable creation of a mathematically precise 3-D virtual capital asset, constituent elements and processes, and supporting time-phased workflow models with accurate fidelity to their real-world counterparts. – Multi-Model Integration – Develop or extend existing modeling tools and standards enabling constituent models of different functions and object types to plug together and function as an integrated whole, where a change in one object or function is recognized and accommodated in “ripple” fashion by all other affected objects and functions. – Standardized, High-Fidelity Product & Material Models – Establish uniform standards for, and launch an industry-wide initiative to develop and validate, high-fidelity (both geometry and physics) simulation models of common construction tools, materials, components, and products that can be plugged into the master simulation model. – Business Process Models – Develop simulation models and information management protocols for capturing, distributing, and controlling all standard types of business information across systems throughout the EPCOMD life cycle. – User-Selectable Model Interfaces – Develop “what you see is what you need” interfaces that present tailored information to different users at the right time throughout all phases of the project.

January 2003

5-27


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Goal 2: Master Simulation Model Data Feeds – Develop technologies for management and provision of external information required to keep the master project simulation model current as capital projects evolve over time. – Model-Linked Sensors – Develop affordable sensors and data communication capabilities that are able to gather real time site data including labor, equipment, and materials used relative to project workflows, process the data into useful information, and feed the results (including dynamic net change information) to the master project simulation model. – Model-Linked Design Databases – Develop construction and maintenance technology/capability databases that allow engineering teams to incorporate advanced construction and maintenance technologies into the facility/structure design in plug-and-play fashion. – Autonomic Change Processing – Develop technologies and protocols enabling the master project simulation model to assess the impacts of changes or new information, alert all affected functions to the prospective change and its effects, arbitrate feedback, provide recommendations and rationale to the decision authority, document approved changes, provide subsequent notification to all functions, and then automatically implement the changes in all affected systems and databases.

January 2003

5-28


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

5.4 FACILITY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

5.4.1 Operation & Maintenance Vision: Highly automated, safe, secure, resilient, and totally efficient and effective O&M will be enabled by a full understanding and complete integration of fundamental science/physics, experience, and knowledge related to processes, equipment, materials, infrastructure, human factors, and other enterprise assets. These features will greatly enhance enterprise productivity, extend facility lifespan and resiliency, reduce risk and liability, improve environmental compliance, and support continuous improvement and capture of lessons learned for future modifications and new projects. In the future, all O&M decisions and actions will be based on a comprehensive understanding of cause and effect, and on total life-cycle considerations. Low-cost, multispectral sensors insensitive to harsh process environments and networked to monitoring and control systems will provide accurate, real-time visibility and control of all meaningful aspects of facility performance and facility. Advanced sensing and control capabilities will enable processes and equipment to operate continuously within spec with no adverse impacts to health, safety, security, the environment, or business efficiency, and to respond autonomously to changes in requirements and conditions. Processes and equipment will perform selfmaintenance and repair using intelligent robotic control systems and manipulators/effectors to augment human capabilities, particularly in potentially hazardous environments and situations. New generations of improved, “smart,” and environmentally benign engineered materials such as nearzero-friction lubricants, self-adapting bonding compounds, self-sealing piping and pressure vessels, and self-tightening “intelligent” fasteners will radically extend the lifespan of process systems and equipment, assure continuously safe and secure operation, and eliminate issues associated with maintenance and repair of legacy materials. In the ultimate vision of the future, teams of “nanobots” operating at the molecular level will continuously monitor, repair, and reinforce corroding, eroding, stressed, or damaged structures to keep systems operating continuously in a safe condition. These systems will interface with

January 2003

5-29


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE the facility sensing and monitoring environment to provide continuous visibility and rapid response to problem situations. Robust, precision simulation models provided by equipment/material vendors will be based on uniform standards and digital definition protocols so that models can be seamlessly and quickly “plugged together” within the framework of the master facility simulation model to provide a 100% accurate physical model of the as-built systems and overall facility. The equipment sensors and self-monitoring features will continuously input state and status information into the enterprise knowledge system, enabling the facility model to be used for real-time control and performance assessment/prediction as well as to capture experience for future improvements. Intelligent monitoring and advisory/decision support systems will alert O&M staff to planned, potential, and unexpected maintenance/repair and emergency response requirements. These systems will assist in planning for contingencies, determining the optimum response to an event, and will invoke resources with appropriate human input to accomplish the needed actions effectively. This function will include triggering of “autonomic” events such as commissioning delivery of spares, consumables, and replacements from the supply network, and emergency response actions such as shutdown of equipment and process feeds to prevent faults or accidents from cascading. These systems will also function as unobtrusive safety/security overseers, alerting personnel to any unsafe action such as walking under a suspended load, turning a wrong valve, overloading a pressure vessel, improperly installing an item of material or equipment, or commencing any operation for which the individual does not have proper certification, training, or authorization. All O&M actions in inherently hazardous areas (e.g., confined spaces, explosive or toxic atmosphere, extreme high/low temperature) will be performed by robotic devices equipped with appropriate sensors and manipulators. These systems will interact with remote human guidance and oversight to assure all actions are performed as intended and within prescribed control limits. The resulting virtual elimination of catastrophic accidents and safety/health/environment risks – including acts of sabotage or overt attack – will redefine business models for facility liability, making it practical and profitable for all stakeholders to team in “shared reward” arrangements where no party has to assume unfair business risks. This presumes elimination of the artificial boundary that occurs in many owner companies, where those managing construction are rewarded for limiting that budget in a way that purposely subordinates value opportunities in the remainder of the life cycle. Goals & Requirements for Operation & Maintenance • Goal 1: Real-Time Measurable Facility Condition Assessment – Provide the capability to monitor and understand the condition of the capital facility and all of its major elements and operations, and proactively identify all needs for maintenance, repair, and emergency response before they impact operational performance. – Low-Cost, Pervasive Multispectral Sensors – Develop classes of affordable, multifunction sensors able to monitor and ascertain condition and status at the individual system, process, equipment, item, and material level for any type of capital facility or structure. – Facility Sensor Fusion – Develop broadly applicable system architectures and processing techniques to integrate inputs from multiple sensors and networks of sensors, enabling clear, humansensible interpretation of status and condition (including proactive maintenance and emergency alerts) in real/near-real time. – Facility Condition Knowledge Base & Baseline – Develop mechanisms to provide real-time human and machine access, both locally and remotely, to as-built/installed configurations, maintenance/repair history, and material/equipment life predictions.

January 2003

5-30


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – Uniform Equipment/Process Information Standards – Develop industry-wide standards for digital documentation and sharing of data on material and equipment properties and characteristics (including simulation models), and O&M best practices. – Sharable Standard Equipment/Process Models – Develop industry-wide standards for creation and validation of mathematically accurate 3-D simulation and performance models for all forms of material and equipment, such that vendor-provided models can be “plugged together” into the master facility simulation model. – Facility O&M Advisory System – Develop an intelligent advisory system that is able to process status information and alerts from all facility sensors and systems in real time and make optimum recommendations to facility operators for proactive and corrective actions (including emergency response), and which is able to implement the desired actions through command and control systems and through communication with operations and management personnel. – Integrated Safety/Security Systems – Develop and implement technologies enabling continuous monitoring for safety/security hazards and threats from incoming or on-site personnel, equipment, and materials, and providing automated tracking and alerting capability when a hazard or threat is detected or suspected. • Goal 2: Self-Maintaining, Self-Repairing Facility Systems – Provide technologies and systems that enable capital facilities to perform maintenance and repair autonomously, with minimal human guidance and intervention. – Self-Maintenance Design Concepts – Develop design/engineering concepts supporting creation of self-maintaining facility systems able to perform maintenance and minor repairs autonomously, and to invoke service from the facility systems as needed to maintain continuous performance within design specifications and parameters. Include the capability for emergency response actions such as automated shutdown under defined failure modes. – Self-Healing Materials & Structures – Develop new classes of materials able to adjust to stressing conditions, such as “smart” structural materials that respond to changes in load by shifting to increase support at point of need, and internal or external wall/pipe linings that automatically react to seal off leaks or breaches. – Knowledge Systems for Autonomous Maintenance – Develop intelligent systems able to determine and communicate maintenance and repair needs based on defined requirements (e.g., reliability predictions/calculations) vs. measured performance and assessed condition. – Autonomous Maintenance & Repair Devices – Develop freestanding robotic devices that are able to perform maintenance and repair actions (including emergency response) for various types and classes of equipment, and which can be programmed specifically to support the unique needs of individual facilities’ equipment and systems. – Autonomous Facilities Transition Strategies – Develop concepts and mechanisms to facilitate a smooth transition of facilities to autonomous maintenance and repair paradigms, including training/retraining of O&M workforce and integration of new with old systems in hybrid operations. – Closed-Loop Recycle – Develop approaches and enabling technologies for closed-loop recycle and reuse of materials, components, parts, and other waste streams orphaned by autonomous maintenance and repair processes.

January 2003

5-31


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Goal 3: Intelligent Feedback of Operational Experience – Provide intelligent systems to feed back the results of operational performance vs. the as-designed and as-built facility to all elements of the enterprise and supply chain to improve capital project processes, support business decisions, and create an industry-wide portfolio of shared O&M best practices. – Facility O&M Systems Integration – Develop architectures and integration protocols for connecting the facility O&M system to higher-level operations management and external enterprise systems, enabling passing of status and activity information to other areas such as labor allocation, resupply, and other site support functions. – Enterprise O&M Systems Integration – Develop architectures and integration protocols for connectivity of the facility O&M system to customers, equipment/material suppliers/manufacturers, and automated design advisory systems; including feedback of maintenance/repair results/data to the master facility simulation model. – Enterprise Control Model Linkages – Develop mechanisms for feedback of maintenance and repair results and data to process-level, facility-level, and enterprise-level knowledge systems, enabling visibility of performance and issues, real-time updating of operational control models, and extension of the planning and design knowledge bases. – Shared O&M Knowledge Bases – Establish and develop accessible databases of maintenance and repair experience for different kinds of capital projects/facilities, enabling sharing of expertise across industry with appropriate provisions for anonymity, security, and intellectual property protection. • Goal 4: Total Life-Cycle Facility Modeling – Provide enterprise modeling and simulation systems that enable total understanding and insight into ultimate cost implications of design, operation, D&D, and maintenance decisions. – Integrated Capital Facility Simulation Model – Develop and validate a common core life-cycle simulation model applicable to any kind of facility, which can be tailored to integrate lower-level individual simulation models for different processes, systems, materials, and items of equipment to create a faithful “mirror image” of the actual facility with respect to geometry, physics, and all other operational and life-cycle parameters. – Capital Facility Life-Cycle Cost Models – Develop and validate a common core life-cycle cost model applicable to any kind of capital facility, and develop and expand variants of the core model for different classes of capital projects, and develop methods to integrate the living cost models into the master project/facility simulation model. – Facility Simulation Model Data Feeds – Develop methods and protocols for capturing common types of historical and real-time data that can be used to update and enhance the accuracy of facility life-cycle models. • Goal 5: Automated Repair/Rehabilitation Technologies – Develop a comprehensive range of automated repair and rehabilitation technologies to enable autonomous maintenance of capital facilities, including automated response to process upsets, accidents, and both overt and covert attempts to damage sensitive systems. – Automation Technologies for Life-Limiting Factors – Develop technologies and systems able to detect, assess, and repair materials, structures, equipment, and systems affected by corrosion, fatigue, breakage, stress, and other life-limiting forces. – Automation Technologies for Critical Performance Factors – Develop technologies and systems able to detect, assess, and repair materials, structures, equipment, and systems with respect to safety, security, health, and environmental issues.

January 2003

5-32


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Goal 6: Catastrophic Event Mitigation & Recovery Technologies – Develop technologies and systems that support mitigation of risk of catastrophic events, support planning for rapid disaster response and recovery, and initiate real-time responses to mitigate the effects of a catastrophic event. – Failure Modes, Effects, & Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and Vulnerability Assessment Tools – Mandate vulnerability assessment and FMECA as standard capital project engineering practices and extend current best-in-class analytical tools to support comprehensive analysis for different types and classes of capital facilities. – Standards for Graceful Degradation & Failsafe Structures and Systems – Develop and promulgate standards for structural materials and members, and different classes of process facility systems, that reduce opportunities for catastrophic failure and cascade events, and enhance the ability of structures and systems to degrade gracefully when failure limits (stress, shock, temperature extremes, etc.) are reached. – Disaster Contingency Modeling & Simulation Tools – Develop a standard toolkit of disaster modeling and analytical tools that can interact with the master facility simulation model to evaluate the effects of different catastrophic failure modes for different classes of capital facilities, supporting evaluation of new and retrofit design features and contingency provisions to defend against and mitigate the effects of such events. – Disaster Response & Recovery Models – Develop a comprehensive suite of model best practices (including concepts of operations [CONOPS] models) that can be widely shared across industry and includes recommended technologies, systems, and training content for O&M personnel for different disaster response and recovery scenarios for different types and classes of facility. – Emergency Situation Monitoring and Response System – Develop knowledge-based systems able to monitor the status of all aspects of the facility during an emergency situation (fire, explosion, process upset, chemical spill, hurricane, etc.) and automatically invoke critical responses such as shutoff of process feeds, rerouting of power, issue of alarms and alerts, summoning of emergency response personnel, and similar actions.

5.4.2 Upgrades & Refurbishment Vision: Planning and execution of all upgrade, refurbishment, renovation, and other “facility renewal” actions will be optimized by planning and design systems drawing on accurate, continuously updated knowledge and integrated automation systems to provide a thorough understanding of requirements, issues, costs, benefits, and life-cycle considerations. In the future, all upgrade and refurbishment decisions will be based on an integrated and comprehensive understanding of total life-cycle, ecosystem, and business considerations. Owner/operators will use accurate, high-fidelity facility simulation models to guide all decisions and implement the results of those decisions, including: • Defining upgrade/refurbishment/renewal requirements and timeframes • Evaluating safety and security vulnerabilities and determining the most cost-effective options to mitigate those vulnerabilities • Evaluating the costs/benefits/impacts of different strategies (e.g., refurbish vs. replace) • Evaluating the costs/benefits of different technical approaches (e.g., upgrade existing process system vs. install new system; reinforce vs. replace existing structures), including impacts on facility effectiveness in meeting its functional requirements and ability to accommodate further changes in the future

January 2003

5-33


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Evaluating the impacts and implications of new regulatory requirements (e.g., asbestos abatement, water recycling, reduced power consumption, reduced air/water emissions, improved safety and emergency response systems) • Optimizing the solution within the context of the facility/structure life cycle, so that upgrades and renovations are not over- or under-engineered (i.e., avoiding “20-year” solutions for a “10-year” requirement, and vice-versa). The facility simulation model will enable decision-makers to understand the ripple effects of different options, such as the need for upgraded load-bearing structures and HVAC systems to support new/modified process equipment, engineer in new safety/security features, or to make changes in parameters such as feed types and throughput. Or, as in the case of a refurbished building or bridge, the need to reinforce foundations and supports to accommodate increased utilization, reallocate space for new or changed functions, or to make provision for different utility needs, such as broadband telecom cabling. The system will enable consideration of input from all domains, ensuring that factors such as health, safety, security and the environment are fully integrated into the decision process. The enterprise knowledge system, armed with the master facility simulation model, will continuously search external information sources to identify opportunities for improvements in operational effectiveness. Information on availability, cost, and performance attributes of new processes, equipment, materials, etc. germane to the facility will be continuously refreshed, and the system will alert facility managers to potential upgrades which meet predefined criteria for performance enhancement and cost savings. Creation and adoption of exacting global standards for product/process/material definition and features will enable managers to easily “plug in” a potential upgrade into the simulation model and quickly evaluate its merits, drilling down into specific attributes such as material properties. Engineers and managers will be able to easily access in-depth information on topics such as development testing results and history of operational use in other applications, with appropriate safeguards for protection of proprietary and safety/security-sensitive information on both sides. Connected to the enterprise knowledge base and business systems, the simulation model will enable designers to quickly flesh out detailed requirements for project execution, and then initiate the work. This includes automated extrapolation and generation of: • Bills of material, manpower estimates, and permitting requirements • Procurement requisitions and work orders, including solicitation of bids • Master plans and detailed schedules to accomplish the work with minimum possible disruption to ongoing operations • Step-wise procedures for accomplishing the work by each function/department/discipline. • Training/certification requirements and schedules of training delivery • Specialized requirements such as testing plans/procedures, site security and health/safety plans, phasing and staging plans, etc. This living model will also enable automated update of the master configuration to accurately reflect the planned “as modified” facility/structure baseline, with configuration updates made automatically as the work progresses. These capabilities are much the same as will be used by the enterprise for planning and executing new, green-field projects. However, in the upgrade/refurbish application the system must be able to integrate the design and planning functions in the context of an existing operation at any point in its life cycle. This case presents far greater complexity due to legacy equipment/material/process issues, labor/workforce considerations, the need to assure continuity of operations, and other related factors.

January 2003

5-34


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE A wide range of technologies shared from the construction execution and O&M functions will support upgrades, refurbishments, and renovations. All software-centric systems (e.g., sensors and monitoring/control systems), for example, will be self-integrating. New elements will automatically interface with the rest of the facility “system” to negotiate data input/output needs and formats and ascertain and establish control limits, and then pass their new state information to the master facility control model to assure it is kept current. Existing systems using high-powered generic processors will simply download new instructions to adapt to changes in requirements, such as a broadband sensor re-tuning itself to cover a different frequency as dictated by changes in process feeds, speeds, temperature, and/or pressure. This automatic plug-and-play functionality will eliminate much of the time and cost traditionally associated with integrating new equipment into an existing operation. Intelligent robotics operating under human oversight and control will accomplish much of the brute-force installation of new structures, equipment, and interconnections such as piping and wiring. In the ultimate vision, nanoscale robotic devices and self-adapting “smart” materials will dynamically respond to changes in the facility/structure environment, providing the same kind of integrated plug-and-play capabilities as envisioned for software-based systems. Welding, for example – one of the most costly and problematic steps in process facility construction/modification, will be replaced by automated nanosystems that automatically seal joints via molecular bonding when two pre-tagged ends are brought together in correct alignment. Weld verification will be done on the spot by robotic vision systems using laser alignment devices and multispectral sensors to verify external and internal integrity, reducing the need for in-process inspection. This will also help eliminate the contribution of structural flaws to catastrophic failure events, assuring that designed-in safety and security features are not compromised by poor workmanship. The combination of smart, self-adapting materials and a shift to performance-based specifications and standards will greatly simplify the challenges of integrating new materials and systems into existing structures, thus reducing the scope and scale of effort associated with major upgrades. Robotic “rats,” for example, will be used to strip and replace wiring and insulation behind walls and in constricted spaces, reducing or eliminating the need to demolish existing structures. This will be particularly useful where historical preservation issues complicate renovation requirements. These advances will not replace humans in the loop, but rather extend and augment human capabilities, reduce project time and cost, enhance safety and environmental compatibility, and eliminate all forms of error. By reducing the cost and time of upgrades and renovations, owner/operators will be able to accomplish them more often. This will enable facilities to operate more cost-effectively over their lives, and extend facility lifespan and safety by means of inbuilt capabilities to evolve to meet changing needs over time, much like complex biological systems. This vision also calls for radically increased use of recycled and renewable materials, in many cases using the cannibalized elements of the facility – concrete, steel, wiring, electrical/electronic components, plastics, coatings, carpeting, sheetrock, etc. – as raw material for fabrication of the upgrades. The ultimate vision is complete recycle/reprocessing capability where materials are stripped down to constituent elements and used as feedstock for molecular-level fabrication processes. Goals & Requirements for Upgrades & Refurbishment • Goal 1: Total Life-Cycle Facility Modeling – Extend and enhance the master facility simulation model to support decision processes for upgrade/refurbishment actions. – Upgrade/Refurbishment Requirements Definition System – Develop a common, industry-wide system to support determination and assessment of requirements for upgrade, refurbishment, and renovation for different kinds of capital facilities.

January 2003

5-35


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – Upgrade/Refurbishment Decision Support System – Develop capabilities and metrics to assess options, feasibility, and risks (safety, security, environmental, hazmat) and arrive at best-value decisions and design options. – Upgrade/Refurbishment Planning System – Develop a planning system able to interface with the master facility simulation model and enterprise knowledge/business systems to automatically generate optimized project plans and supporting data such as bills of material, labor/skill mix requirements, subcontracting plans, and electronic RFQs. – Upgrade/Refurbishment Knowledge Base – Provide mechanisms to incorporate industry best practices into total facility plans and models, enabling optimized implementation to minimize disruption of existing operations and systems. • Goal 2: Autonomous Design & Construction Capability – Provide facility management and control systems capable of performing autonomous design and construction of upgrades, expansions, refurbishments, etc. under human guidance, based on calculated needs. – Autonomous Upgrade Design Capability – Develop the capability within facility design systems to “self-design” upgrades/refurbishments taking into consideration the installed facility systems and operational requirements. – Autonomous Planning & Construction Capability – Develop construction systems able to autonomously plan and carry out upgrades, expansions, refurbishments based on human authorization, marshalling both on-site and off-site resources and interfacing with the enterprise’s project management system to both commission work and prepare inputs to project management systems (e.g., BOM, Purchasing). – Automatic As-Built Update – Develop the capability to continuously update the as-built facility model with the result of upgrade/refurbishment projects. • Goal 3: Real-Time O&M Information Exchange with Supply/Demand Network – Provide the capability to communicate operational experience and requirements with all elements of the distributed capital facility enterprise and supply chain to support business decisions. – Capital Projects O&M Web – Develop Internet-based mechanisms to interconnect customers, equipment/material suppliers/manufacturers, and automated design and support systems within the capital projects community, providing the capability to trigger autonomous logistics support events such as replacement/resupply of spares and consumables. – Capital Projects O&M ExperienceNet – Develop commonly accessible databases of experience (with appropriate anonymity, security, and intellectual property protection) relative to O&M for different classes of facilities. • Goal 5: Upgrade/Refurbishment/Renovation Execution Technologies – Provide extensions to emerging construction and O&M technologies to support the unique needs of facility upgrades and major renovations. – Nonintrusive Autonomous Effectors – Develop small-scale autonomous devices able to operate inside existing structures (e.g., walls and piping) to perform common tasks such as rewiring and removal/replacement of insulation. – Legacy Integration & Emulation Technologies – Develop techniques, materials, systems, and practices that support renovation of legacy facilities/structures without compromising desirable features, such as in the case of historical preservation, and which enable “minimum change” renovation of legacy materials and structures, enabling low-cost refurbishment instead of large-scale renovation. – Advanced Materials for Reinforcement & Resurfacing – Develop new materials (and supporting application techniques) capable of being applied to/integrated with existing facility materials to provide reinforcement and resurfacing to like-new condition or to accommodate changes in requireJanuary 2003

5-36


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE ments, such as higher throughput, greater loads, new safety/security/environmental compliance features, or more extreme environmental conditions.

5.4.3 Decommissioning/Disposal Vision: All capital projects will be designed and optimized from inception for safe, secure decommissioning, deconstruction, and disposal at end of life, with 100% recycle and reuse of all constituent materials. In the future, all new facilities will be designed for efficient, cost-effective deconstruction down to greenfield with zero health/safety/environmental (HSE) impact at the end of their lifespan. As a core element of the facility planning process, facility designers will work with the owner/operator and local, state, and federal stakeholders and oversight agencies to develop a life-cycle model of the proposed facility that takes into account planned, anticipated, and potential changes over time for both the capital project and its community. Demographic shifts and regional population forecasts, economic trends, environmental issues, energy supply and demand, transportation infrastructure impacts, land-use planning, and similar factors will be integrated into the model to help optimize the design to realize the best possible outcomes both through and at the end of the facility’s life, including conversion to new uses. Facility/enterprise business models will be engineered to allocate a fixed portion of the enterprise revenue stream to gradually “pre-pay” estimated D&D costs across the life of the facility. This will reduce the cost of end-of-life disposition and also provide a margin for dealing with previously unknown problems such as the industry has encountered with lead in paints, asbestos in insulation, and PCBs in transformers. The facility model will include a comprehensive and scientifically accurate analysis of environmental interactions in both a local/regional and global context, based on validated models shared across industry. Pathways for release (both planned and potential) of toxic, hazardous, and other undesirable compounds (solvents, heavy metals, particulates, greenhouse gases, etc.) to soil, air, and water will be extensively mapped so that cumulative long-term impacts can be documented and appropriate systems put in place to assure safety and security as well as compliance with regulatory limits over the life of the facility. In the ultimate vision, all capital facilities and structures will be zero-discharge – providing 100% capture and containment of all undesirable substances generated in the course of operation or via defined failure modes, including catastrophic events. This ability cannot be achieved by any single technological breakthrough, but rather requires systematic targeting of process improvements and technologies over time for improved containment and “scrubbing” of off-gasses, process liquids, scrap, and other waste streams. Cost-effective technologies for capture, stabilization, and encapsulation of all forms of waste will enable facilities to attain zero-discharge status, to the extent required to prevent free release to the environment. Redundant containment designs, using techniques as basic as sealed flooring and directed drainage to holding tanks, will reduce or eliminate the impact of spills, process upsets, or acts of sabotage. Improved integrity of process systems under stressing conditions will be enabled by enhanced materials and more robust system designs with built-in failsafes and graceful degradation modes. From the D&D perspective, the objective of these life-cycle design enhancements is to assure a completely “clean” facility at the end of its life. This will radically simplify the complexity (and reduce the time and cost, by orders of magnitude) of the D&D process, since the D&D activity will have to deal with little or no toxic or hazardous materials. This in turn will enable the facility to be taken all the way down to green-field, with no limitations on future use of the site. Facilities will be designed from inception for cost-effective deconstruction, disassembly, and reuse/ recycle/recovery of constituent materials. The disassembly simulation will be built into the master facility simulation model and maintained throughout the facility life, updated as needed to accommodate the impact of upgrades, refurbishments, repairs, or other changes. It will also be updated over time to reflect advances in D&D technologies and techniques, shared across industry.

January 2003

5-37


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Thus, at the point of decision to D&D an entire facility or any of its major parts, the D&D plan will be in hand ready to execute, with all requirements pre-identified - including the D&D bill of material, labor levels and skill mix, and deconstruction/recycle approaches for every element of the facility – including process equipment, foundations and structural members, walls and flooring, glasswork, roofing, fasteners, and furnishings. Existing networks for material recycling will expand to create a total, internet-based D&D network that provides complete capability for marketing, sale, and reprocessing of 100% of a facility D&D activity’s outputs. D&D will continue to be a significant element of life-cycle cost. However, comprehensive recycle coupled with up-front design/planning and techniques for containment of D&D cost escalators will radically reduce both the time and cost of ultimate life-cycle disposition. D&D will continue to be a manpower-intensive process. However, the current practice of demolish-andsalvage will evolve to one of efficient dismantlement and reclamation. Robotic systems augmenting the D&D workforce and operating under human guidance and control will systematically disassemble structures from the top-down and outside-in (or inside-out, as may be appropriate), beginning with furnishings and equipment and finishing with structural members and foundations, separating and directing the waste stream feeds for collection and disposition. In the ultimate vision, D&D will be accomplished by a handful of preprogrammed “deconstructor” nanodevices that demolish the facility top-down at the molecular level, replicating and adapting as needed to process the different quantities and types of materials present. Materials not used for replication will be directed to material collection feed points for reprocessing for other uses, and the final act of the deconstructors will be to cannibalize each other to separate and reclaim their molecular constituents for reuse.

Goals & Requirements for Decommissioning and Disposal • Goal 1: Up-Front Design for Life-Cycle Disposition – Provide engineering and business tools to enable full consideration of D&D and conversion/reuse options from the inception of the capital facility design effort. – Living Materials Inventory – Develop a database system which automatically captures, in quantitative and qualitative form from the facility bill of material and as-built definition, 100% of all materials used in construction, operation, maintenance, and life-cycle support of the facility/structure throughout its life, and updates this model continuously to account for O&M activities and facility usage. – Life-Cycle Design Advisor & Simulation Model – Develop a knowledge base and design advisor for D&D/conversion/reuse-compatible design, addressing best practices and material options and supporting the creation and maintenance of comprehensive facility/structure conversion and deconstruction “blueprints” and simulation models. – D&D Risk Mitigation Tools – Develop extensions to the D&D design advisor that specifically enable identification and modeling of elements with significant D&D risk impact (both technical and cost), such as handling and disposition of hazardous and toxic materials. • Goal 2: Comprehensive D&D Business Model – Provide a D&D business model to enable informed best decisions about D&D issues. – Generic Facility D&D Models – Develop generic life-cycle models for major classes of capital facilities that can be tailored for any kind of facility or structure. Incorporate supply/demand factors, business rules, and technology advances into the facility models to improve D&D decision-making over time.

January 2003

5-38


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE – Land Reuse Assessment Capability – Develop model extensions to support evaluation and determination of facility/land reuse options (including conversion to entirely new use) at the end of a facility’s intended life. • Goal 3: International Recycle Marketplace & Infrastructure – Develop a global business infrastructure for 100% recycle of outputs from capital facility D&D projects. – D&D Material Gap Analysis – Using the evolving Living Materials Inventory developed under Goal 1, perform a gap analysis to identify all materials for which cost-effective recycle processes and markets do not yet exist, or where markets are marginal. – D&D Separation & Recycle Technologies – Develop enabling technologies to separate, recycle, reprocess, reuse, and/or reengineer all materials output from capital facility D&D – with a priority on hazardous, toxic, and landfill-issue materials – such that these processes create sufficient saleable product to offset the cost of the D&D project. – Pilot D&D Recycle Network – Establish a formal pilot network of D&D “process providers” and material buyers that can be developed over time to attain 100% recycle. • Goal 4: Automated/Integrated D&D Technologies & Techniques – Provide comprehensive, integrated, and automated techniques to enable efficient, safe, economical D&D of different kinds of capital projects. – Global Protocols for Site Assessment – Develop international standard protocols and supporting analysis and management tools for site assessment and risk determination/quantification of facility D&D projects. – HSE Requirements Definition & Management System – Develop analytical techniques to identify, document, and manage facility/project-specific health, safety, and environmental requirements for D&D of capital facilities and structures. – Autonomous D&D Systems – Develop affordable, flexible robotic systems able to perform all D&D operations, with initial emphasis on HSE-critical and emergency response operations, using the facility deconstruction model developed during the initial facility design phase. – Mobile On-Site Recycle Systems – Develop technologies for on-site processing and recycle of hazardous and toxic materials (including radiological and biological agents in emergency situations), enabling conversion to forms for cost-effective reuse or safe disposal. – Facility “Autopsy” Technologies – Develop tools and supporting technologies that enable analysis of a facility as it is deconstructed to assess the life-cycle performance of the design and the materials, products, processes, and equipment originally used to build it, enabling feedback to the planning, design, construction, and O&M functions for use in improvement of future facilities.

January 2003

5-39


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

6.0 IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS OF HOMELAND SECURITY 6.1 HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES AND ONGOING INITIATIVES The construction industry plays a major role in all aspects of the nation’s infrastructure – from design, to operation and maintenance, to refurbishment, and to the eventual decommissioning and recycle of capital facilities. Therefore, the industry must be at the fore in designing security into facilities, in minimizing risk, and in assuring the ability to sustain operations. The new realities of post-9/11 present challenges and opportunities for the construction industry and owner/operators of capital facilities. The ability to design and erect structures that are able to survive catastrophic events, for example, is not only vital in light of September 11, but represents a competitive advantage in pursuing capital projects in areas of the world that are prone to terrorism as well as to earthquakes and other natural disasters. Of greater importance is the need to reduce vulnerability – by developing and deploying 1) smart sensors and monitoring systems that can detect and deter attempts to penetrate or disrupt critical facilities, and 2) robust, intelligent processes and systems that are hardened against disasters and acts of sabotage. The ability of facilities and process systems to “degrade gracefully” in failure modes is also key, allowing well-coordinated emergency response and containment while maximizing protection of workers, emergency response personnel, and the public. These attributes are particularly vital for chemical process facilities and utilities facilities (and volatile products in transport), given the critical nature of their operations and the potential for a small, focused act of sabotage to produce catastrophic results. The process industries must also be able to deter and detect more subtle forms of attack, assuring the safety and integrity of the products they provide to consumers as well as the chemical feedstocks and commodities they supply to other industry sectors. Industry and government are working together to deal with these issues. A summary of major initiatives follows.

6.1.1 White House Report The National Strategy For Homeland Security was commissioned by the White House and published in July 2002 as a strategic plan for coordinating the nation’s response to the new realities of terrorism. While this document identifies the various kinds of threats that fall under the auspices of Homeland Security, many of the recommendations are organizational in nature. Technology is addressed primarily in the context of communications, bioterrorism, and emergency response. Capital facilities and infrastructure are addressed only at a very high level. The section on Protecting Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets – the area encompassing capital facilities – stresses that such assets must be better protected, and notes the need for low-cost sensors to protect against chemical and radiological threats. The document emphasizes the need for widespread collaboration between government and industry: “Protecting America’s critical infrastructure and key assets requires an unprecedented level of cooperation throughout all levels of government – with private industry and institutions, and with the American people. The federal government has the crucial task of fostering a collaborative environment, and enabling all of these entities to work together to provide America the security it requires.” 27

27

The National Strategy For Homeland Security. Office of Homeland Security, July 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/

January 2003

6-1


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

6.1.2 National Research Council Report In a 2002 report, Making The Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology In Countering Terrorism, the National Research Council addresses how the scientific and technological capabilities of the United States can best be harnessed for the many challenges presented by the new realities of homeland security. Specifically, the NRC report asserts that research agendas should be developed in areas of vulnerability related to biological sciences; chemical sciences; nuclear and radiological sciences; information technology and telecommunications; transportation; energy facilities; cities and fixed infrastructure; behavioral, social, and institutional issues; and systems analysis and systems engineering. As with the White House report, the NRC report stresses the need for using and leveraging science and technology in countering terrorism. The NRC recommendations span a very wide range of technology areas. Of interest to the capital facilities industry, it calls for an intelligent, adaptive electric-power grid; new and better protective gear, sensors, and communications for emergency responders; advanced engineering design technologies and firerating standards for blast- and fire-resistant buildings; sensor and surveillance systems; and new methods and standards for filtering air against both chemicals and pathogens as well as better methods and standards for decontamination. Table 6.1.2-1 lists NRC’s most important recommended technical initiatives, and highlights representative relevant goals set forth in the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap. Note that in most cases, the goals listed have multiple requirements with varying degrees of applicability. In other areas, the relationship is tangential. The first NRC recommendation, for example, is to “Develop and utilize robust systems for protection, control, and accounting of nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials at their sources.” The Capital Projects Technology Roadmap supports this recommendation with a number of goals and requirements related to monitoring and detection of hazardous materials. These encompass the capability to detect radiological threats through the proliferation of low-cost sensors as a routine design element in most facilities. Table 6.1.2-1. Capital Projects Technology Roadmap Relevance to NRC Technical Initiative Recommendations National Research Council Most Important Technical Initiatives

Related Goals in Capital Projects Technology Roadmap

Immediate Applications of Existing Technologies 1. Develop and utilize robust systems for protection, control, and accounting of nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials at their sources. 2. Ensure production and distribution of known treatments and preventatives for pathogens. 3. Design, test, and install coherent, layered security systems for all transportation modes, particularly shipping containers and vehicles that contain large quantities of toxic or flammable materials. 4. Protect energy distribution services by improving security for supervisory control and data acquisition systems and providing physical protection for key elements of the electric-power grid. 5. Reduce the vulnerability and improve the effectiveness of air filtration in ventilation systems. 6. Deploy known technologies and standards for allowing emergency responders to reliably communicate with each other. 7. Ensure that trusted spokespersons will be able to inform the public promptly and with technical authority whenever the technical aspects of an emergency are dominant in the public’s concerns.

January 2003

6-2

• Automated Real-Time Sampling & Reporting System • HSE Monitoring & Response Systems • Autonomic Supply & Staging System • Automated Real-Time Sampling & Reporting System • Real-Time Measurable Facility Condition Assessment • Automated Readiness Certification • Self-Maintaining, Self-Repairing Facility Systems • • • •

HSE Monitoring & Response Systems Automated Real-Time Sampling & Reporting System Proactive HSE Systems N/A

• Integrated Communication Between Project Management Systems • Real-Time Measurable Facility Condition Assessment


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 6.1.2-1. (continued) Capital Projects Technology Roadmap Relevance to NRC Technical Initiative Recommendations National Research Council Most Important Technical Initiatives

Related Goals in Capital Projects Technology Roadmap

Urgent Research Opportunities 1. Develop effective treatments & preventatives for known pathogens and potential emerging pathogens. 2. Develop, test, and implement an intelligent, adaptive electricpower grid. 3. Advance the practical utility of data fusion and data mining for intelligence analysis, and enhance information security against cyberattacks. 4. Develop new and better technologies (e.g., protective gear, sensors, communications) for emergency responders. 5. Advance engineering design technologies and fire-rating standards for blast- and fire-resistant buildings.

• N/A • • • •

Automated Design Real-Time Measurable Facility Condition Assessment Self-Maintaining, Self-Repairing Facility Systems Secure, Integrated Data Environment

• • • • • • • • •

Automated Real-Time Sampling & Reporting System HSE Monitoring & Response Systems Real-Time Measurable Facility Condition Assessment Automated Design Improved Materials Engineering Enhanced Materials & Components Radically Advanced Construction Concepts Self-Maintaining, Self-Repairing Facility Systems Comprehensive, Automation-Friendly Repair/Rehabilitation Technologies Automated Real-Time Sampling & Reporting System HSE Monitoring & Response Systems Real-Time Measurable Facility Condition Assessment Intelligent Systems for Feedback of Operational Performance Automated Real-Time Sampling & Reporting System Automated Design

6. Develop sensor and surveillance systems (for a wide range of targets) that create useful information for emergency officials and decision makers.

• • • •

7. Develop new methods and standards for filtering air against both chemicals and pathogens as well as better methods and standards for decontamination.

• •

6.1.3 OSTP Critical Infrastructure Protection Priorities Workshop In late September 2002, the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) brought together more than 90 senior industry leaders and government officials to exchange facts and information on the security of the built environment. Sponsoring organizations included the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Civil Engineering Research Foundation/International Institute for Energy Conservation (CERF/IIEC), the National Science and Technology Council’s Construction and Building Subcommittee, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Veterans Administration, the General Services Administration, with assistance from the Construction Industry Institute (CII) and The Infrastructure Security Partnership (TISP). Four breakout groups generated 17 prospectuses/initiatives for consideration. Table 6.1.3-1 outlines these topics and how they nominally map to the elements of the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap. Note that while many of the recommendations focus on issues at a policy level, subjects such as risk assessment must certainly be addressed with increased rigor in every phase of the capital project life cycle. In turn, the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap calls for aggressive advances in areas such as modeling and simulation and automated contingency/risk assessment to improve capabilities for analysis of technical risk scenarios.

January 2003

6-3


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Table 6.1.3-1. Capital Projects Technology Roadmap Relevance to Critical Infrastructure Protection Priorities Workshop Prospectuses CIP Proposed Initiatives Guidance on Risk Assessment Practices For Addressing Terrorist Threats For Buildings Facility Knowledge Systems for First Responders Collaborative Infrastructure Security Matrix National Policy on Risk Assessment for Homeland Security Building Systems Catastrophic Avoidance/Mitigation Mechanisms For Integrating Monitoring & Response Systems Mechanism For Rapidly Developing & Commercializing Viable Products/Projects Immune & Responsive Building Concepts Overcoming Legal Barriers Building Owner/Occupant Education & Training For Response To Terrorism Accountability For Safe Building Performance Alternative Building Regulatory Strategies Make Retrofits Affordable & Lower Financial/Insurance Barriers Risk Communication & Education Risk Analysis Data Needs & Availability Collaborative Government/Private Partnership for Risk Assessments

Relevant Capital Projects Technology Roadmap Area Project Planning & Mgmt

Project/ Facility Design

Procurement & Construction Ops

Facility O&M

√ √ √ – √ √ – – – √ √ √ √

– √ √ – – √ √ – √ – – √

– √ – – – √ √ – – – – √ – – – – –

– √ √ – – √ √ – √ – √ √

√ – – –

√ √ –

√ √ √

6.1.4 NIST Initiatives The National Institute of Standards and Technology is at the forefront of research in many areas of interest to Homeland Defense and the capital facilities industry. The agency has more than 120 ongoing or newly initiated projects, including major initiatives in the areas of strengthening structural and fire safety standards; improved materials for structures; cybersecurity standards and technologies; enhanced threat detection and protection; tools for law enforcement, and emergency response.28 NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) is pursuing several initiatives related to Homeland Security, including: • An R&D program to provide the technical basis for improved building and fire codes, standards, and practices. This program addresses work in critical areas such as structural fire safety, prevention of progressive collapse, building vulnerability reduction tools, and equipment standards for first responders. It includes recommendations from an earlier Building Performance Assessment completed under the auspices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for investigation of WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6, Bankers Trust, and peripheral buildings as well as recommendations for future studies to address specific issues of broader scope. The intent is for the findings and recommendations to be introduced into the voluntary consensus process that is used to develop build28

www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/homeland.htm.

January 2003

6-4


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE ing and fire codes and standards in the U.S. The rate at which the recommendations can be implemented will depend on the level of funding available to the R&D program. • An industry-led dissemination and technical assistance program (DTAP) designed to provide practical guidance and tools to better prepare facility owners, contractors, architects, engineers, emergency responders, and regulatory authorities to respond to future disasters. The DTAP is an important complement to the R&D effort in gaining acceptance of proposed changes to practices, standards, and codes. In addition, it will address training and education of stakeholders.

6.1.5 The National Infrastructure Security Partnership The Infrastructure Security Partnership (TISP) was formed in September 2001 in direct response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington DC. The partnership brings together key publicand private-sector professionals whose expertise and experience have a direct impact on the future security of America's built environment. TISP's purpose is to facilitate national dialogue and cooperation on domestic infrastructure security among the agencies, organizations, and professionals who design, build, and protect the nation's critical infrastructure. By bringing together the leaders in the field, TISP aims to bring the vast collective expertise of professionals in the design and construction industry and government to bear on one of the most important challenges facing America today. The Partnership intends to play a leading role in addressing infrastructure vulnerability and in developing nationally coordinated and integrated strategies for mitigating the effects of natural and man-made disasters on critical elements of the nation's infrastructure. TISP also works to advise and support the Office of Homeland Security on these vital issues. The goals of TISP are:29 1)

Promote joint efforts to improve anti-terrorism and asset protection methods and techniques for the built environment.

2) Promote the participation of all interested organizations and ensure effective communication between all participating entities from the national to the state and local level. 3) Cooperate in the identification and dissemination of data and information related to the security of the built environment. 4) Promote effective and efficient transfer of infrastructure security knowledge from research to codes, standards, public policy and general practice. 5) Encourage synergy between organizations to react quickly and positively to issues of significance. 6) Promote effective professional relationships to further the advancement of the infrastructure industry. 7) Encourage and support the development of a methodology for assessing vulnerabilities. 8) Encourage the establishment of protocols related to the sensitivity of information generated and distributed by the Partnership. 9)

Consider consequences of anti-terrorism/asset protection measures to occupants of facilities and emergency responders.

6.2 VIRGINIA WORKSHOP FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS One of the first actions of the Virginia workshop was a review of the draft Capital Projects Technology Roadmap with respect to Homeland Security considerations. The four breakout teams independently de-

29

http://www.tisp.org/static/about.cfm.

January 2003

6-5


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE veloped listings of issues and actions, which were reviewed by all participants and informally ranked to develop a top-level prioritization as follows: 1) Availability of and access to existing knowledge for improved security in all aspects of capital facilities and projects 2) Hardening of existing infrastructure, including retrofitting of facilities to new standards 3) Incentives to support investments in secure facilities, such as a Homeland Security Investment Tax Credit 4) Clearly defined authority for establishment and administration of policy 5) Integration of supply chain and logistics issues into Homeland Security equation for capital projects and facilities 6) Standardized processes for evaluating risk, including cost/benefit models 7) Information security 8) Uniform codes, including graded security and risk guidelines 9) Hardened and resilient structures and process systems 10) Data interoperability across all aspects of the capital projects industry. Table 6.2.1 provides a detailed view of the recommendations and prioritization results. It should be noted that the voting process was highly informal, and the resulting “top 10” issues reflect combined results from multiple similar or overlapping topics. Table 6.2.1. Detailed Prioritization Results, Grouped by General Topic Category

Total 30 Pts

Issue/Recommendation

Education, Training, and Culture 7 • Quick education, acceptance, and deployment of new methods and procedures 4 • A culture change for a better security mindset Standardization 33 • Availability of existing knowledge base 23 • Standard representations of specifications/codes requirements 19 • A common definition of who sets policy 16 • Clear definition of authority 11 • Uniformity of codes across Federal, State, and Local 6 • Code as a part of the baseline design 6 • Industry involvement in codes and standardization 4 • Integrated and streamlined code creation 4 • Owner-specified requirements included in design codes Business Incentives 36 • Incentives for inclusion of security measures such as tax credits, insurance, and contracts 31 • Homeland Security Investment Tax Credit 20 • Overcome reluctance of technology providers to share proprietary technology for security capability – by stabilizing their business position Technologies for Physical Security 37 • Hardening of existing infrastructure; retrofitting of old buildings to new standards 33 • Current view must change – the facilities view must include the supply chain and logistics issues 22 • Resilient structures 22 • Specification and loading of materials to assure security of contents 15 • New technology needed to protect process control systems 10 • Technology for physical security of the facilities

30

The numbers recorded in the “total points” column represent the voting of the approximately 50 people who attended the workshop. Each participant was allowed to vote for 10 topics, and each point represents one vote.

January 2003

6-6


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Category

Total 30 Pts

Issue/Recommendation

9 • 6 • Information Technology 22 • 16 • 16 • 15 • 15 • 14 • 8 • 4 • Risk Analysis 26 • 21 • 18 17 16 Security Levels 16 8 Legal Issues 9 7 5 Asset Management 10

Systems that mitigate threats as they are received Graceful degradation and alternate solutions for construction sites Leveraging data interoperability across the entire life cycle and in/across the entire industry Availability of existing knowledge base Standard representations of specifications/code requirements Information security Protection of hardware and software systems from cyber threats 3D model of designs Business relationships built on metrics rather than trust alone Wireless vulnerability

Risk assessment for retrofit sites Guidance for risk assessment and security strategies for construction. Should address the cost/benefit equation • Availability of existing knowledge base • Economics of protection measures including ROI for security investments • Decision support tools for evaluating risk • Graded levels of security based on risk and a categorization system • Security advisors for commercial design software • Tort reform – Strengthening and clarification of Good Samaritan laws • Effect of expectations and change to our accepted standards of care related to liability • Legality of digital renditions

• Good asset/resource/capabilities tracking by organization and means of coordinating among organizations is required to achieve effective security response Intelligent Design & Construction 19 • Resilient structures and systems and graceful degradation 12 • Multi-dimensional project management style Decision Making 11 • Definition of the business model and characterization of elements in the business plan that are affected by sustainability needs 5 • Decision support tools that consider irrational behavior

6.2.1 Recommendations for Action The following section provides a more in-depth discussion of recommendations relative to Homeland Security put forth by the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap workshop participants in November 2002. Each section provides a brief discussion of the topic, including recommendations for specific technology investments and industry/government actions. Technologies for Physical Security Technologies for physical security dominate any discussion of improving the security and safety of capital facilities. It is not possible to design and build a facility that is completely immune to any form of attack or natural disaster. However, it is mandatory that we make better use of existing technologies, and further develop emerging and new technologies, to reduce vulnerability and improve the ability of our capital facilities to withstand catastrophic events. Design for physical protection must be an inherent element of the facility design process from the earliest stages of conceptual development. This process must look at not just the facility itself, but its total life cycle “footprint”, including the logistics associated with its design, construction, and operation. New facilities must be designed to be intrusion-proof and both hardened and resilient against fire, explosions, chemical/biological/radiological contamination, and physical attack. This includes specific requirements for:

January 2003

6-7


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 1) Affordable structural and other building materials with greatly improved strength-to-weight ratios and which degrade gracefully at their stress limits (bend vs. break, melt vs. ignite, etc.). 2) Industry-standard engineering specifications and design guidelines for threat-hardened design features and materials of construction for different kinds and classes of facilities, similar to those in place for nuclear power plants. 3) Automated safety/security design advisors – add-on modules or extensions to CAD systems – that aid planners in designing facility features (including process systems), specifying materials and purchased parts, and engineering in safety/security features that yield threat-hardened, disasterresistant, resilient facility designs. 4) Standard (PC- and CAD-based) analytical and evaluation applications that assist facility planners in determining how best to upgrade and retrofit existing facilities for improved physical protection. 5) Technologies for monitoring and tracking materiel moving through the facility supply chain, to ensure they meet specified requirements and also to detect “Trojan horse” threats such as bombs and chemical or biological agents that might be introduced at origin or in transport. 6) Positive tamper detection seals with encrypted serial numbers for application to any kind of container or closed area. 7) Low-cost passive and active chem/bio/rad hazard detectors and electro-optical tracking systems for application to all facility portals and entryways (gates, doors, roads, etc.), able to remotely scan personnel, material, containers, and vehicles; initiate alarms upon detection, with a near-zero falsealarm rate; and automatically track the source(s) in a manner similar to current military tactical fire control systems. 8) Multi-spectral scanning technologies that enable non-invasive inspection and real-time analysis of structures, materials, and pressure vessels to identify potential failure points. 9) Facility and process equipment monitoring and control technologies that enable immediate detection of failures or incidents and automatically take appropriate response actions – such as shutdown of process feeds and power (to isolate the system or subsystem from the rest of the facility) summoning of emergency response teams, evacuation of personnel, initiation of safety systems (e.g., water or halon for fire suppression). This includes technologies such as smart valves that automatically activate in response to upset events, to prevent cascading of effects as well as prevent hazardous releases (steam, pressurized fluids or gases, etc.) 10) Active surveillance, tracking, and access control for construction sites and operational facilities to bar entry by unauthorized personnel, to provide for positive identification of authorized personnel, and to monitor site activities to ensure continuous safe operations. This includes the capability to continuously track all site material, equipment, and personnel, providing the capability to immediately identify any safety or security problems as well as document a complete audit trail to support incident investigations. It also includes biometric positive identification technologies (fingerprint scanning and facial recognition) to verify the identity of authorized personnel. Standardization The capital projects/facilities sector is a highly distributed, highly fragmented industry with thousands of members, ranging from Fortune 50 firms to one-person independent contractor firms. Projects must be planned and conducted, and the resulting facilities operated, under a myriad of regulations, standards, and codes that vary by region, state, county, and local community under the umbrella of multiple federal, state, and local agencies. This state of affairs is even more complex for U.S. companies with projects and operations in foreign countries.

January 2003

6-8


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE There is no single point of standards and codes leadership or responsibility for the industry. Organizations such as ASCE, ASME, CERF, and CII, and agencies such as NIST and the EPA, all participate in different aspects of standards processes and seek to deal with the issues that affect the industry, but progress tends to be incremental and focused on narrow issues. This situation is a critical barrier to addressing the challenges of Homeland Security, ranking high on the workshop participants’ agenda of issues that bar meaningful progress. Specific recommendations are as follows: 1) The federal government must establish a single point of responsibility, accountability, and authority for defining and managing standards for the capital projects industry. 2) The designated agency must engage a representative cross-section of industry (both construction firms and owner/operators) to advise and assist in the formulation of graded standards that are meaningful, implementable, and affordable. 3) The industry/government team will develop a comprehensive and integrated set of national building codes and associated standards for safety and security of design, construction, and operation that supersede all existing codes and standards at every level, while providing for local tailoring where such tailoring does not reduce safety or security parameters. 4) The industry/government team will develop a phased implementation schedule, including timetables for retrofit/upgrade of existing facilities and focusing on early implementation for critical infrastructure facilities and those facilities considered high-priority targets. 5) The codes/standards process will make maximum use of prevailing codes and standards as a baseline, and provide for industry/public review in a manner similar to that currently used for environmental permitting, including on-line review and comment via the Internet. 6) The approved codes/standards will be implemented in easily accessible standard electronic representations that support a rule base and design features library (both 2-D and 3-D) for computeraided design and planning systems. Information Technology Information technology is both a valuable asset and a critical vulnerability in addressing Homeland Security concerns. Increasing freedom of access to stored information about facility designs and operations provides an unprecedented capability to analyze potential targets, evaluate vulnerabilities, and game-plan attacks for low risk and high reward. The increasing reliance of U.S businesses and agencies on electronic information storage and electronic commerce likewise presents potential adversaries with a rich spectrum of targets that, if “taken out,” could inflict severe damage to the nation’s economy. From the devices perspective, technologies such as digital cameras and cell phones are powerful tools enabling adversaries to plan and execute attacks with impunity. These technologies certainly cannot be taken off the market; rather, supporting technologies must be developed and deployed in concert with common-sense safeguards. Specific recommendations of the Virginia workshop team are as follows: 1) Define and establish best-practice industry infosec policies and procedures for protecting project/facility information that bears on security, safety, vulnerability, failure modes, logistics, and similar factors. 2) Develop and implement multi-level security technologies that enable facility designers and operators to provide easy access to required data for those who need it, while assuring denial of access (and capturing an IP address audit trail of such attempts) to unauthorized individuals and devices (e.g., servers outside the continental U.S.). Explore the possibility of extending current re-

January 2003

6-9


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE mote desktop control applications to automatically trace suspicious access attempts back to the originating terminal device and scanning that device for evidence of hostile intent. 3) Deploy encrypted secure wireless communications capability for all security and emergency response organizations. 4) Establish a shared, secure knowledge base of “design for security” tools that facility planners can draw upon to quickly and effectively integrate security and safety features into project designs. 5) Develop and deploy security analysis applications that automatically assess designs for vulnerabilities (both modes and methods). 6) Develop “secure project” process business models and information sharing/exchange protocols that limit the specific information and data available to each partner to the minimum essential to accomplish their respective scopes of work, including “blind” transactions for design and procurement of security- and safety-critical systems, equipment, components, and materials. Risk Analysis Planning, design, and construction of secure capital facilities can only be done within the context of a complete assessment of technical and business risks. While it may be technically possible to design and build ultrasecure, disaster-proof structures and facilities, the associated costs would not support reasonable return on investment (ROI) scenarios. The escalating cost of safety, other regulatory constraints, and liability issues on nuclear power facilities, for example, effectively halted all new plant construction more than 20 years ago. Clearly, tools are needed to help facility designers, owner/operators, and all project stakeholders assess risks and conduct tradeoffs in the planning and design process to enhance safety and security at affordable cost. Specific recommendations of the Virginia workshop team include: 1) Establish a shared knowledge base of information to support risk analysis across the industry. 2) Develop economic models of different protective measures. 3) Develop a rating process for evaluating risk based on facility type, size, location, and other parameters. 4) Develop security advisor modules for commercial design software, enabling technical and cost evaluation of different security/safety features and options. 5) Develop risk assessment tools for use in evaluating retrofit options for existing facilities/sites. 6) Provide guidance for risk assessment and security strategies for construction supply chains and construction sites, including a cost/benefits equation. Business Incentives While profitability is not the sole driver of the capital facilities industry, every project must be planned and executed to meet the business objectives of the enterprise and the facility and provide a fair margin of profit for all participants in the project supply chain. The possibility of catastrophic loss, and associated liability, presented by the new realities of the post-9/11 world have introduced unprecedented risk factors that threaten to destroy current business models for project financing and ROI, and industry alone cannot afford the significant investments required to develop the needed technologies to mitigate these risks. Specific recommendations of the Virginia workshop team include: 1) Review and revise federal and state regulations (including insurance regulations) to reasonably cap the liability of facility designers, constructors, and subcontractors for catastrophic loss. 2) Develop and implement industry-wide standard contract provisions that mandate sharing and bounding of risks and liability for different classes of projects.

January 2003

6-10


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 3) Establish standard insurance incentives for inclusion of security and safety technologies and features over and above code compliance (similar to current alarm system and smoke detector credits for homeowners). 4) Provide mechanisms for widespread, low-cost sharing of security/safety technologies across the industry. 5) Establish a Homeland Security Investment Tax Credit or similar tax law changes to incentivize industry investments in security and safety technologies. Intelligent Design & Construction The key to building safer and more secure capital facilities and structures is to design and build in such features from inception. Eliminating obvious vulnerabilities would not only make such facilities resistant to attacks or other forms of catastrophe, it would greatly reduce the likelihood of their being singled out as targets – since the tenets of terrorism are to attack “easy� targets and inflict the greatest amount of damage. While the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap makes many recommendations for improving design and construction capabilities, the Virginia workshop team cited two requirements for special emphasis: 1) Provide capabilities to design in failover capability, to mitigate the effects of any incident or accident. 2) Provide capabilities to design and build resilient structures and systems that degrade gracefully in failure modes. Legal Issues In addition to the Business Incentive issues discussed above, the Virginia workshop team recommended that a number of legal issues, primarily related to liability, be addressed: 1) Legality of digital renditions as the authorized design basis approved by the owner, contractor(s), and regulatory oversight agencies. 2) Tort reform to protect project designers, engineers, and constructors from opportunistic litigation. Security Levels As noted above it is impractical if not impossible to design and build capital facilities that are impregnable to all forms of attack or disaster. Therefore, the Virginia workshop team recommends development of a set of standards that support: 1) Graded levels of security based on project/facility type, size, location, and other risk factors. 2) Appropriate separate standards for existing vs. new facilities. Decision Making Across the industry, at every level of the supply chain, companies are working to understand the implications of Homeland Security and take appropriate measure to remain viable and profitable in the post-9/11 business environment. Tools are needed to help companies make smart decisions. Specifically, the Virginia workshop team recommends development of a suite of decision support tools that will enable companies at all levels of the capital projects supply chain to: 1) Redefine business models in the context of security/safety and sustainability needs. 2) Prioritize required actions (for R&D and capital investments, business process changes, etc.). 3) Consider potential irrational behaviors, from internal as well as external sources.

January 2003

6-11


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Education, Training & Culture Education and training are key enablers of safe, secure construction and facility operations, and U.S. industry has done an outstanding job over the past two decades in developing a safety-conscious workforce. In light of 9/11, however, the Virginia workshop participants made several recommendations: 1) Universities, colleges, and other academic and other institutions that train workers for the capital facilities industry need to increase the security content of their curricula, particularly for facility planners, designers, and managers. 2) Companies must quickly move to implement training and awareness programs to develop a “security first” culture in all aspects of planning and operations, similar to current safety and quality cultures. Asset Management The topic of asset management presents two primary considerations. First, companies must be able to assure the integrity and control of their assets – equipment, materials, and goods – on a continuous basis, protecting them against compromise or misuse. This is especially important for facilities and operations using hazardous materials such as explosives, reactive chemicals, and radiological materials that could be used as weapons or which present secondary threats in case of a fire or other industrial accident. The second consideration is that companies must be able to continuously track the location and status of the assets, as a deterrent to theft/misuse and as a means to coordinate emergency response in the event of a safety or security incident. Good asset/resource/capabilities tracking by organization and means of coordinating among organizations is required to achieve effective security response. Global Issues While the subject of “global issues” did not receive significant attention in the workshop, it was noted that any initiatives relative to Homeland Security must be conducted in the context of a global perspective. The primary threats that must be countered have their origin outside U.S. borders, and the facilities and interests of the U.S and its allies must be protected anywhere in the world. A particular challenge is the increasingly global nature of the capital facilities industry. Most large U.S. construction firms have affiliations and operations abroad, and routinely use local in-country partners and labor in their operations as well as on individual projects. The same is true for major facility owner/operators. Primary issues include: 1) Unification of standards for safety and security across national boundaries, balancing local autonomy against the need for meaningful international standards. 2) Flexibility and freedom to collaborate with local/regional partners and labor forces, promoting positive business and cultural relationships while assuring that such relationships do not create openings for hostile acts. 3) The need to share improved security and safety technologies with international partners and allies, balanced against the need to protect the technologies from compromise.

January 2003

6-12


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

7.0 PROJECT PLANS As the initial output from the Capital Projects Technology roadmapping process, seven projects were identified and developed into implementation plans to initiate the first steps toward organizing industry teams and developing specific actions to fund and execute the projects. The resulting draft project plans, presented in this section, cover seven specific topics across the four Focus Areas: Focus Area 1 – Project Planning & Management Project 1: Master Facility Life-Cycle Model for Project Planning and Management Focus Area 2 – Project/Facility Design Project 2: Construction Industry Data/Information/Knowledge Repository Project 3: Automated Capital Projects Design Environment Focus Area 3 – Procurement & Construction Operations Project 4: Integrated Procurement & Supply Network Project 5: New Materials, Methods, & Products Development & Implementation Project 6: Intelligent Job Site Focus Area 4 – Facility Operation & Maintenance Project 7 - Intelligent Facility Life-Cycle Optimization. These seven projects represent the critical capabilities that underpin the capital projects industry vision of the future. They will deliver the initial and core functionality required to develop the major elements of the next-generation integrated system for project planning, design, management and control, procurement, construction execution, and facility operation and maintenance. Each project was selected based on its ability to address barriers and gaps in current industry capabilities that impose huge cost and cycle-time penalties, including total life-cycle cost impacts as well as facility acquisition cost. Each project plan is also designed to the maximum extent possible to be independently executable, delivering greatly extended capabilities and significant benefits in their own right. However, as a close reading of all the project plans will reveal, they are also designed to integrate as part of the total system as defined by the Vision model.

January 2003

7-1


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

PROJECT 1: MASTER FACILITY LIFE-CYCLE MODEL FOR PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT Contributors Scott Birth, Mead Westavo Corporation Doug Brassard, McDonough Bolyard Peck Pena-Mora Feniosky, MIT Karl Georgi, Bechtel Systems Miriam Heller, National Science Foundation Hal Macomber, Lean Construction Institute Ronald Palmer, Palmer Security Consulting Camille Villanova, U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA Charles Wood, FIATECH Felix Wu, NIST 1.0 THE OPPORTUNITY All aspects of capital project planning, coordination, control, and life-cycle management can be addressed in a single master facility life-cycle model. This vision realizes its full potential in delivering an optimized, dynamic plan (model) for the project, and using that model for real-time control and documentation of all aspects of the plan, design, build, operate, maintain, and decommission stages of the life cycle. This breakthrough capability will enable significantly compressed design and build time, reduced costs for better facilities and structures, reduced risk of business and technical failure, and elimination of delays and overruns in project management. In the O&M phase, the master facility life-cycle model will assure optimized operation and support best decisions in every aspect of facility management. This system can be delivered. Advanced information technologies coupled with modeling and simulation technologies offer the opportunity to create a unified planning and management environment where all project information and all applications are integrated and accessible from a single information source: the Master Facility Life-Cycle Model. The capabilities addressed by the model include: customer requirements, facility concept and design, engineering and business analysis, scheduling and estimating, requirements management, and progress monitoring and reporting. The master model is an information construct, a knowledge base of all information about a project, that provides a single interface for all project functions and applications – from initial project conception to design, construction, operation and maintenance, and ultimate decommissioning. By providing an integrated information and applications framework and visualization interface, the master model will radically reduce the time and cost of planning and executing projects; streamline the interaction of all participants across the project/facility life cycle; and provide a “single portal” for capture and access of all knowledge needed to make best decisions for every activity at every stage of the project. 2.0 THE PROBLEM Achieving the objective of having a solid geometry model be the focal point for analysis, simulation, planning, manufacturing, and operations remains elusive to the complex facility engineering world. Although progress has been made with the use of 3-D modeling, advanced project management systems, and integration of schedules with the project models for 4-D capability, there remain many unfinished

January 2003

7-2


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE links in the chain – the largest missing link being the ability to integrate all functions and all information flows in a single systematized project management environment. That is the challenge that this project addresses. Some specific problems include: • Poor access to accurate data, information, and knowledge. • Project attributes are evaluated locally for a limited set of parameters in a limited domain. The capability to make fully supported “total best value” decisions does not exist. • Tools for planning and design and project management and enterprise management are maturing, but an integrated solution that delivers all of the needed functionality for any kind of project is not available. • We don’t understand life-cycle issues very well, so we don’t model and plan for life-cycle operation well. End-of-life considerations are given little consideration in the planning equation. • The ability to assess uncertainty, risk, and the impact of failure is immature. This is partly due to lack of knowledge with which to evaluate, and partly due to the limitations of available tools. • The capital projects industry, in the main, views projects sequentially and organizations autonomously. The perspective of the total enterprise is limited. • The business foundation for response to homeland security concerns does not exist, and the ability to address these concerns is limited by a lack of understanding of risks and alternatives. All of these deficiencies will be addressed in this project. To more clearly illuminate the challenges, the following paragraphs provide more specific descriptions of the challenges of the master facility life-cycle model. Capital project planning and management processes have benefited greatly from application of information technologies. However, the underlying processes are still manually intensive, and individual planning and management functions remain discrete activities that are not tied together in a systematic way. The output of these systems is largely paper, which planners and managers use to document status, review and communicate plans, process through issues, and make decisions. Computer-based scheduling applications enable planners to quickly generate and update project plans – but the output is a paper schedule used in preparing work plans and cost estimates. Automated cost reporting systems enable managers to assess progress against plans and identify cost and schedule variances, but again the ultimate outputs are primarily paper reports. Process flowsheets, architectural renderings, bills of material, engineering requirements, construction execution plans, and other outputs of the project planning process are likewise generated today using automated tools. These tools enable plans to be iterated quickly, reducing the time and cost of readying a project for execution and then tracking its progress. However, since they essentially automate wholly manual processes, they have little fundamental impact on the greater capital projects process. Despite advances in data sharing and interactions between applications, the acquisition and integration of information across the project planning and management functions (particularly on large-scale projects involving many partners, team members, and stakeholders) remains a tremendous barrier to efficiency and effectiveness. As most capital project managers would attest, the biggest problems do not come from the data you have, but rather from the data you lack. Scoping studies, cost estimates, and related business functions are often done with a less than full awareness of relevant information. All of the information needed for good decisions is rarely available, so managers make best-guess decisions based on their experience and on input from their technical experts. If the right information is not captured up front, the right knowledge is not integrated into the planning process. Lack of interoperability among systems and applications is another critical barrier, requiring numerous loops of data re-creation to support different systems and processes and introducing many opportunities for error that are undetected until a problem emerges.

January 2003

7-3


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 3.0 THE GOAL The goal of this project is to develop a fully integrated facility planning and management system based on the master facility life-cycle model concept as depicted in Figure 3-1. The system will enable project teams to interact with customers and other project stakeholders to develop and refine a complete set of requirements and plans from an initial statement of need. Project design and planning options will be rapidly evaluated using a rich suite of modeling and simulation tools, accessed from the master model, that enable rapid exploration of different scenarios to arrive at the best conceptual designs and the best plan for the subsequent detailed design effort. Based on project type, scope, and location, the system will interface with external databases to capture regulatory requirements, codes, and standards and allocate them to the design requirements set contained within the master model. The system will automatically generate an initial work breakdown structure and workflows based on similar prior projects to provide a framework for costing, scheduling, and work task definition. The project planning team will interface with the design function via the master model environment to iterate conceptual designs, using immersive modeling and simulation capabilities that let planners and stakeholders view and concur on functionality, aesthetics, layouts, flowsheets, and features as well as construction execution plans. The system will draw on captured knowledge of previous projects and links to business systems to determine availability and prevailing pricing of labor, materials, and equipment, enabling accurate cost and schedule estimates to support the project financing process and facilitate authorization to proceed to the design phase. The master model will be the controller for all functions of the capital project. The planning and scheduling systems, financial systems, design system, job site management and control systems, and other functions will interact with the master model to acquire the information they need to perform their functions, and provide the information required by interrelated functions. The information flow to and from the master model will be seamless, and all information, needed by any and all functions, will be provided in the right form, at the right place, and at the right time. Links from the master model to external information sources will enable all domain tools (scheduling and design applications, procurement systems, etc.) to quickly access the outside information they need to accomplish their tasks, and asFigure 3-1. The master facility life cycle model will build sure the information is accurate and confrom geometry to full documentation of the built facility. tinuously up-to-date. The master facility life-cycle model will not be completed in the project planning phase, but will be built up over the entire project life cycle – capturing the total design package created in the design effort; capturing all material and vendor requirements, data, plans, and schedules in the procurement phase; interfacing with progress reporting functions and capturing as-built information in the construction phase; and providing the operations and management team with a high-fidelity facility simulation model for control of operations, planning of facility modifications, and, ultimately, deconstruction at the end of the facility’s life.

January 2003

7-4


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 4.0 SOLUTION APPROACH Development of an end-to-end project life-cycle management system based on a central simulation model concept will require advances in many information technology areas in addition to modeling and simulation tools, and a significant integration effort. The approach will rely on several key elements that enable the basic architecture of the master model system: • A 3-D CAD system to provide and manage the basic geometry models • A standard information architecture to enable integration of applications and data flows • User interfaces and mechanisms for accessing system functionality through a single portal • Data repositories for storing functional system outputs and inputs • Reengineering of business processes to function in the new environment, with associated workforce training. Because many of the needed advances must come from outside the capital projects community, the project team must collaborate with other industry sectors and develop a strong construction industry consensus in order to influence the technology vendor community in the needed directions. The construction industry project team must develop an understanding of available and emerging tools and applications and integrate these into the envisioned master model conceptual architecture. Other aspects of the master model, such as the information to be accessed and acquired, the user interfaces, the applications and corresponding data interfaces, must be developed and tailored to the construction environment in cooperation with technology providers. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. Task 1: Information Architecture. The objective of this task is to develop an information architecture that identifies all of the information type inputs and outputs for the capital project process and facility life cycle. Since capital project requirements vary greatly depending on the facility type (building vs. bridge vs. chemical plant vs. manufacturing plant vs. mall), the information architecture must be inclusive of, or extensible to, all possible requirements, and be sufficiently modular so that different modules can be independently activated based on project type and scope. This will also enable the needed developments to be pursued with a large degree of independence, which is essential to mitigating technical risk. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 1.1 Information Model Survey. Evaluate existing information models for capital project processes and select the best candidate as a baseline for the system information architecture 1.2 Business/Technical Information Requirements. Extend the selected baseline model to encompass all project/facility processes, with separate extensions for discrete facility/project types, and develop a comprehensive set of information output/input requirements for each function. 1.3 Model Validation. Broadly disseminate the draft information architecture model to the user and technology developer communities to solicit feedback on accuracy, completeness, and functional interface relationships. Update the model as appropriate and publish as a baseline for system development. Task 2: Tool Survey and Assessment. The objective of this task is to identify and evaluate existing commercial or proprietary tools that can provide the functionalities required for project planning/ management and other phase of the project/facility life cycle. While the emphasis of this project is on the planning and management function, the system must be able to support all of the phases of the life cycle, including design, construction execution, and O&M. Multiple candidate tools should be identified for each function, in order to get the benefit of competition as well as mitigate the risk of depending on a single source. This activity will also include a gap analysis to identify areas where needed tools do not exist, or where current tools are so lacking in required functionality that significant new development is required. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows.

January 2003

7-5


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 2.1 Tools Survey. Conduct a comprehensive survey of existing commercial and proprietary tools that support project planning/management processes and engineering design activities. Document tool functionality, data input/output requirements/capabilities, and general specifications and features. Publish for widespread dissemination as both a stand-alone deliverable and for use in subsequent tasks. 2.2 Tool Mapping. Map each tool in the baseline tool inventory to the information architecture model developed in Task1. Determine the “best fit� of the available tools to the model’s functional requirements, with the objective of mapping a minimum of two tools to each function. 2.3 Gap Analysis. Based on the results of Task 2.2, identify needed and desirable modifications to each tool to enable integrated, end-to-end flow of information and data through every functional element of the information architecture model. 2.4

Vendor Feedback. Disseminate the results of the Gap Analysis to the respective tool vendors/developers, and provide support for development of the desired modifications and extensions. Based on the results of these interactions, develop a technology demonstration and insertion plan to support the demonstration phase activities to be conducted under Task 5.

Task 3: User Interface. The objective of this task is to develop the visualization and tool access interface. As envisioned, the basic interface will be a 3-D visual representation of the subject facility that provides access to information and functions through pop-up and pull-down menus. At capital project inception, the representation will of necessity be a low-fidelity approximation (generic bridge or building, etc.) since the conceptual design has not yet been created. The representation will be systematically enriched and enhanced as the concept matures and the design effort progresses, ultimately providing a 100% accurate virtual simulation by the time the design is handed off for procurement and construction. Users will be able to do virtual walk-throughs, virtually assemble and disassemble structures and equipment, run performance simulations, do tradeoff analyses, call up technical and business specifications, view current cost and schedule information, and similar functions. Security features will need to be engineered in to provide for protection of sensitive information, such as vulnerability data and failure modes. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 3.1 Simulation Environment. Survey current leading-edge simulation environments being researched and developed by the academic, federal, and private R&D communities and engage two or more sources to develop the simulation-centric environment required for the master simulation model system. 3.2 Graphical User Interface. Convene a working group of industry users, representing a full range of capital project disciplines (planners, designers, financial managers, project managers, etc.) to define required user interface functionality, including menu structures and command/control interfaces. Document the results of this effort, circulate for widespread industry review, and update as required. 3.3 Interface Integration. Provide the validated user interface scheme to the simulation environment developer for implementation; or alternatively, engage a qualified third-party integrator to provide/support the needed integration work 3.4 Interface Demonstration and Validation. Make the integrated simulation environment and interface available for industry evaluation via the web and on local workstations. Document feedback and requirements for modifications, and implement the desired modifications.

January 2003

7-6


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Task 4: Application and Data Interfaces. The objective of this task is to provide connectivity between the visualization environment, the underlying tools, and information and data sources both within and external to the project. This will require definition of functional interface standards and specifications enabling the application vendor community to “white wire” their existing tools to support demonstration of functionality and compatibility, and ultimately evolve their tools into true “plug and play” applications. This will also require extensive work with the owners of needed external information sources (e.g., regulatory agencies and manufacturers/vendors/suppliers of materials, equipment, and fabricated products) to identify standard data content and format requirements for specifications, CAD models, etc. that enable the system to seamlessly access such data and plug it into the master facility model. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 4.1 Application Requirements Definition. The specific activities associated with this task will depend on the results of the tool assessment developed in Task 2 and the simulation environment developed in Task 3. At a minimum, for each tool identified in the baseline set, specific interface requirements will be developed to enable the tool to be accessed/invoked through the simulation environment interface, and to input/output and share/exchange data with the master model and with the other applications integrated into the system. 4.2 External Data Requirements Identification. Using the information architecture model as a framework, identify the types and sources of information that must be acquired from outside a project of a given type in order to accomplish the project objectives. 4.3 Data Source Identification and Data Quality Assessment. For each discrete data type identified in Task 4.2, identify the current data source owners (vendors, manufacturers, government agencies) and characterize the current available data for accuracy, completeness, electronic accessibility, and format compatibility. 4.4 Data Community Feedback. Based on the results of Task 4.3, work with the data source owners to implement modifications and improvements required to support integration with the master simulation model system, including specification of standard data formats for standard types of data, such as product CAD models, material models, etc. 4.5 Two-Way Data Exchange. Define requirements and explore options for the master model system to send data to external sources and systems, supporting project “outreach” functions such as submission of technical data packages and reports for regulatory review, dissemination of bid packages for vendor solicitations, distribution of engineering change orders, and similar functions. Task 5: Prototyping and Testing. The objective of this task is to integrate the results of the preceding tasks to create and demonstrate a prototype master facility life-cycle model that supports project planning and management and provides the core of a complete facility life-cycle management system. 5.1 Primary Testbed Facility. Survey interested technology developer sites (NIST or other federal laboratory, or a university R&D facility) and select one or more to serve as primary integration and test facilities for the components of the system. 5.2 Tool Integration and Test Sites. Survey interested capital projects industry firm and solicit and select one or more sites for independent demonstration and testing of various components of the project management system as it evolves. This will help distribute the cost of the required developments and assure direct user community input and feedback. 5.3 Component-Level Testing, Demonstration, and Evaluation. Consistent with accepted information technology development practices, complete the various component developments, conduct functional and performance testing, host demonstrations for industry users, and once acceptance criteria have been satisfied, provide the completed component to the primary testbed facility for in-

January 2003

7-7


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE tegration and system-level testing. This may include provision of on-site engineering support for troubleshooting and debugging. 5.4 System Integration, Test, Demonstration, and Assessment. The facility life-cycle management system will be integrated and tested against the requirements defined in the preceding tasks and made available to all project participants for independent evaluation and prototype application. User feedback will be documented and provided back to the respective component developers to support further improvements. Task 6: System Evolution. Based on the results of the integrated demonstration and test program, requirements for enhancement and extension of system functionality will be provided back to the developer community to support further evolution of the system. At this point, the system is expected to be ready to “roll out� for commercial usage, supported by the respective component developers and with an industry user/developer steering group directing follow-on technology developments.

January 2003

7-8


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 5.0 PROJECT PLAN The summary-level plan for the Master Facility Life-Cycle Model for Project Planning and Management project is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Project Plan for Master Facility Life-Cycle Model for Project Planning and Management.

January 2003

7-9


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 6.0 BENEFITS AND BUSINESS CASE This project addresses the backbone of the technologies and systems needed to achieve fundamental business-driven benefits of design and build cycle time compression, reduced costs in both the off-site and onsite functions, and highly increased workforce productivity in all aspects of the capital project. The Master Facility Life-Cycle Model project will deliver the penultimate vision of capital facilities project management: seamlessly integrated project functions and processes, coupled to live data, with all desired functionality accessible and executable through a common interface shared by all project stakeholders. Project planning functions that today take hours, day, and weeks to complete, often with uncertain results, will be completed in seconds, minutes, and hours. Requirements will be automatically captured from customers and external sources and populated into the system to guide planning and engineering tasks. The evolving design will be immediately accessible with supporting specifications and analyses, through a 3-D virtual interface. The underlying simulation environment will enable rapid definition and evaluation of different scenarios to support definition of the best combination of features, cost, and performance. When designs are approved, the system will automatically generate procurement packages and supporting schedule and financial data and automatically disseminate the packages to project team members and qualified suppliers and vendors. Integration with financial reporting systems will provide project managers with one-click visibility into the status of any task or issue, and automatically flag cost, technical, and quality variances for management action. The master model will also include the total construction execution plan, complete with specifications, bills of material, time-phased labor/material/equipment staging, and resource allocations. Every task and step in the construction process will be simulated with an accurate time component, turning the 3-D facility model into a complete 4-D living simulation. This will enable planners to optimize construction sequencing to drastically reduce build time and cost, and assure safety and security of operations. Integration of sensing and monitoring functions will enable the master facility model to be continuously updated with as-built information, comparing and providing complete visibility of progress against the defined plans and budgets. It will also enable immediate identification of errors and problems, such as misrouted material/equipment, improper assembly, and safety and security incidents. When the project is complete, the master model will be handed off to the facility operation and maintenance function for use as a facility control model, supporting routine O&M activities as well as planning and execution of facilities upgrades and other actions downstream in the life cycle.

January 2003

7-10


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

PROJECT 2: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DATA/INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE REPOSITORY AND

PROJECT 3: AUTOMATED CAPITAL PROJECTS DESIGN ENVIRONMENT Contributors Michael Alianza, Intel Corporation Julio Arocho, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mark Browning, JP Step Holding Co. Benson Fergus, CH2M Hill James Garrett, Carnegie-Mellon University Michael Hayes, CH2M Hill William Iler, Bentley Systems Jim Johnson, Bentley Systems Larry Stephenson, U.S. Army Engineering Research Development Center Robert Wible, NCSBCS 1.0 THE OPPORTUNITY The best designs – automatically produced and providing all information needed for planning, executing, operating, and managing capital facilities – that is the opportunity presented by this paper. The benefits will include cost savings, accelerated time from concept to operation, and reduction in errors and liabilities through design optimization. The opportunity and the benefits are magnified by realization of the necessity for a safe and secure national infrastructure. The time for limited attention to issues like the ability of a design to withstand impact or explosion is past, and full attention must be devoted to design for security. Design for effective response to emergencies must be also considered. We possess the opportunity to create design systems that assure cost-effective inclusion of both common sense and mandated protection in all of our structures. Within the next decade we will see a revolution in design. A single “master facility life cycle model”, built from the initial project requirements, will be the interface for all design information, applications, and processes, including capture and communication of specifications, costs, schedules as well as tradeoff analyses and management of facility flowsheets and CAD geometry. Users, customers, and other stakeholders will be immersed in a mathematically and accurate visualization environment wherein requirements, preferences, and design options are evaluated in a scenario-based environment for cost, performance, and schedule impacts. It will also provide a foundation for management and control of the capital asset across its entire life cycle, from construction to decommissioning and deconstruction. 2.0 THE PROBLEM Design tools and technologies have come a long way in the construction industry over the past decade; 3-D design is becoming the norm, and 4-D systems, which integrate design with the schedule, are emerging. In general, today’s designs are produced using automated tools for discrete elements of the faJanuary 2003

7-11


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE cility, making extensive use of past designs for similar projects, and the overall design is a manually assembled electronic or paper data package. Past experience provided by knowledgeable personnel is critical to every aspect of the design, and is perhaps the greatest factor influencing the ultimate quality of the design as measured by the functionality, performance, and cost of facility construction, operation, and maintenance. The utilization of captured knowledge in design advisors that assist in design optimization is in its infancy. Beyond facility process modeling, the use of modeling and simulation tools to support the evaluation of options in making design choices is rare. In addition, the design function is not well integrated. The conceptual design is often viewed as the domain of the architect, and the detailed design is the domain of the engineer, and the transition from conceptual to detailed design is sharply defined. This disconnect creates unwarranted costs and missed opportunity for optimization, particularly in the area of total cost of life-cycle facility ownership. In addition, facility design, process design, and the detailed engineering designs are typically addressed as separate functions, with the only integration tool being interface control documents (ICDs). Total design optimization can only be achieved as concepts are integrated with detailed designs, and as all design functions are addressed as an interrelated set.

Millennium Bridge Goes Back to the Drawing Board “Galloping Gertie,” the bridge that fell into the Tacoma Narrows on November 7, 1940, may be dismissed as an accident from the past, but the kind of engineering problems that felled Gertie continue in today’s high-tech age. The Millennium Bridge, a 325-meter, state-of-the-art span over the Thames River in London, connects the city with St. Paul’s cathedral. The cost of the project was £18 million (~$28 million U.S.). With much pomp and circumstance, it opened on June 10, 2000 and was heralded as a great engineering feat. However, it quickly closed on June 12 b ecause of the sway (nearly 3 inches) caused by pedestrian traffic. With much embarrassment, the engineers returned to the drawing board and d esigned modifications to eliminate the sway. This is just one example where time and money are lost and safety jeopardized because of failure to consider all important fa ctors in design. In this case, the side-sway from human walking patterns (and potentially fatal resonance effects) was not properly consi dered. http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/15802.html

3.0 THE GOAL The ultimate goal of the two proposed projects is the delivery of a complete and automated capital projects design system that is integrated with current and comprehensive knowledge bases of industry experience and domain expertise. The system will address the complete project life cycle, from capture of customer preferences and requirements, to conceptual design, to detailed design, and supporting the downstream functions of procurement, construction, operations and maintenance, and ultimate disposition of the facility at the end of its life. The design system will integrate with the master facility simulation model (described in another paper in this set) to support total management of project design and performance throughout the project life cycle. The design system and its interactions are shown in Figure 3-1. While the structure of the system implies a sequential flow, it should be emphasized that the system will be capable of delivering design packages to appropriate levels of detail at each stage in the project process (e.g., business decision gates, regulatory approvals, preliminary and critical design reviews). The system will enable the project team to interact with the customer and other stakeholders to assist in decision processes and will capture the requirements and preferences that serve as a starting point for design. These inputs will be processed to develop scenarios that allow the rapid evaluation of candidate solution concepts and options in a mathematically accurate visualization environment. Modeling and simulation tools linked to the system will provide quantitative evaluation of all alternatives, enabling all stakeholders to assess the cost and performance of each option and to factor in intangibles such as aesthetics and unknowns such as risk.

January 2003

7-12


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Figure 3-1: The automated design system will support evaluation of options in a virtual, scenario-based environment. Interfaces with enterprise and industry knowledge bases, the master facility life-cycle model, and the automated procurement, construction execution, and O&M functions will assure that the design is optimized for the best balance of all facility attributes.

Since design generation will be automated, the cost and time of design will be greatly reduced, as will the cost of managing the various levels of design detail. The system will be capable of generating “slices� of design as required to support individual needs for project planning, domain-specific reviews, and other functions. The conceptual designs will be refined by the system to produce detailed designs that are consistent with all of the preferences and requirements. Establishment of industry-wide product definition and data standards will enable designers to specify and select supplier-furnished materials, components, fabricated products, etc. and automatically plug those designs into the total system design, complete with geometry and associated specifications and performance models, providing compete assurance of form/fit/function compatibility. This will pay huge dividends in the construction phase, since everything required to accomplish a build tasks will be fully defined, and all assets to complete the task will have been delivered on time to point of need – provisioned by the procurement system, which is working from the exact same plan, schedule, and bill of material. The initial system implementation will address categories of structures by domain (i.e., limited subsets of the total design challenge). The system will grow in functionality to deliver complete, detailed design packages for any capital project, including the ability to fully capture life-cycle considerations in all design decisions.

January 2003

7-13


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 4.0 SOLUTION APPROACH The subject of design for capital projects has been considered in two FIATECH workshops. At the first Technology Roadmapping workshop in October 2001, the participants clearly articulated a vision of automated, knowledge-based design. At the second workshop, in November 2002, the group focused on the creation of a knowledge repository to support the data, information, and knowledge needs of industry, including design. Based on this input, this project plan defines a dual strategy for creation of an automated design environment for capital projects. The first project focuses on the creation of a rich shared data/information/knowledge repository. The second project addresses the creation of a framework for automated design and the development of an integrated suite of design advisors that will grow to a fully automated design environment. The vision of totally automated and integrated design is aggressive, but achievable. For success in the long term while delivering value in the short term, a strategy of iterative development will be followed. A data/information/knowledge repository will be developed. This repository will provide great value in its own right by making critical information readily available across the industry, as well as in support of the needs of the automated design system. Homeland security is a consideration in all aspects of the design system. While neither of the projects proposed directly focus on Homeland Security, the issues are extensively addressed in the content. The Data, Information, and Knowledge Repository project will specifically include security issues in design, and the Automated Capital Projects Design Environment project will embrace rules and conventions that assure best practice for the protection of life and property. 4.1 PROJECT 1: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DATA/INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE REPOSITORY One of the largest problems facing all industries is access to needed information. Companies spend billions of dollars each year searching for data that should be readily available. The advent of the Internet offers one path to solution, but it is a two-edged sword. In many cases, the Internet only makes the haystack larger, and the needle harder to find. For these reasons, a capital projects knowledge repository will be developed. This repository will be owned and managed by industry for the satisfaction of their specific needs. The pathway to delivery of the repository is illustrated in Figure 4.1-1 and fleshed out in the tasks and subtasks that follow. The first step is the creation of the environment for the repository. A structure must be established that assures the proper management of the information. The second task addresses the validity of the data. Clearly, for the system to have value, the confidence level in the content must be high. The validation of the data will be done through two mechanisms. Where possible, systems will be put in place to assure that the information is correct and useful.

January 2003

Data/Information/Knowledge Data/Information/Knowledge Repository Repository

Shared SharedKnowledge KnowledgeEnvironment Environment Data DataValidation Validation Population Populationof ofthe theRepository Repository Materials, Materials,Methods, Methods,and andRegulatory RegulatoryData DataManagement Management Homeland HomelandSecurity SecurityKnowledge KnowledgeRepository Repository

Figure 4.1-1. Data, Information, and Knowledge Repository Project Structure.

7-14


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Population of the repository is a major challenge. Companies must clearly see a business case for their contribution, and research organizations must be rallied to assist. Due to the magnitude of the challenge, data requirements will be prioritized and population of the repository will be incrementally phased. Particular emphasis will be placed on critical information needs related to materials, methods, and regulatory issues. Homeland security will receive special emphasis, with the goal of a providing single source of definitive security-related information. Task 1: Shared Knowledge Environment – Capital projects technical and business data, information, and knowledge will be accessible from any location, on demand, with appropriate control of sensitive assets. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 1.1 Needs Assessment and Determination of Priorities – The information needs of the industry will be assessed and a prioritized/time phased plan will be developed to support the development and population of the repository. 1.2 Shared User Interface – Adopt a transparent single user interface (common desktop), applicable for multiple computing platforms. Adopt collaboration tools that accessible from every desktop to support location independent access. 1.3 Data Management Structure – Develop an architecture that supports the management of diverse data, information, and knowledge for definitive storage, retrieval, and maintenance. 1.4 Universal Data Availability – Establish neutral data format specifications and processes that support instant data/information access and that support the integration of data, information, and knowledge to support user specified unique views of complex information sets, including the ability to scale from high to low levels of detail. 1.5 Conventions for Common Components – Establish common structures that support the storage and retrieval of all common components used in the capital projects industry (in design and construction). 1.6 Capital Projects Data Exchange – Establish a capital projects network with appropriate security to assure access to specific, needed information including intelligent search capability. Task 2: Data Validation – Develop data verification and validation strategies to insure the integrity and utility of the information contained in the repository. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 2.1 Integration of Existing Experimental Data – Establish an electronically accessible archive of existing data needed by the capital projects industry and provide index and search functions to support its use. Include assessment of accuracy and reliability of this data. 2.2 Data Capture Standards – Establish standard methods for companies and research organizations to utilize in submitting data to the repository to assure the integrity of the data and the system. 2.3 Science- and Model-Based Data Validation – Establish intelligent screening systems to assist in the validation of submitted information. 2.4 Management of System Integrity – Establish protocols and administrative procedures manage the repository for assured utility of the contents. Task 3: Repository Population – Populate the repository, compliant with procedures, to provide information useful to all of the capital projects industry. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 3.1 Business Incentives for Provision of Corporate Information – Provide a strong business case and management structure that incentivizes companies and researchers to willingly and enthusiastically support the population of the repository.

January 2003

7-15


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 3.2 Design/Reuse Repository – Provide benchmarking of best practices and lessons learned in design to enable the reuse of systems and subsystems. 3.3 Priority-Based Repository Population – Implement the prioritized plan of task 1 to assure the aggressive growth of a useful repository. Regularly review the priorities to assure the inclusion of the most useful information. 3.4 Repository Maintenance – Establish automated procedures that force the review of the information contained in the repository, based on rule sets agreed to by the user community. For example, rules might be enforced based on frequency of use of the data or perceived value to the community. Task 4: Materials, Methods, and Regulatory Data Management – Provide special emphasis and access for topics of most pressing need to the capital projects industry including materials characterization, methods and processes, and regulatory and compliance information. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 4.1 Critical Materials and Methods Identification – Provide a dynamic reference resource for current information concerning materials and methods for construction. 4.2 Material Properties Management – Provide detailed characterization of materials common to the construction industry. 4.3 Methods and Processes Management – Provide both business and technical assessment information concerning construction methods and practices, including information useful in automated decision analysis 4.4 Regional and National Code Requirements – Provide dynamic access to regional and national code requirements, including support in highlighting specific concerns and enabling improved decision processes. 4.5 Component Library – Provide detailed data and information concerning all common components used in capital projects, including all details needed for selection and design. Task 5: Homeland Security Knowledge Repository – Provide information that supports a threat sensitive design and operations environment. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 5.1 “Threat Centric” Information – Develop “minimum threat” guidelines for good design practice, and provide information needed to support threat-centric design. 5.2 Risk Level Linkages – Provide knowledge that relates alternatives to risk acceptance and provide information to support design to risk levels 5.3 Response Advisors – Include in the knowledge repository information that supports the proper response to any and all situations, and provide this information compatible with the inclusion of response in the as-built design package. 5.4

Single-Source Homeland Security Emphasis – Promote the idea of the knowledge repository developed by this project as a unifying single source for homeland security information, eliminating confusion and misinformation.

January 2003

7-16


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

4.2 PROJECT 2: AUTOMATED CAPITAL PROJECTS DESIGN ENVIRONMENT A revolution through evolution – that may be the best way to describe the strategy for creating a capital projects design environment. Starting with the development of a framework or design environment, conventions and rules will be developed to support a growing set of design advisors. These advisors will address high priority domains, and will deliver immediate value to the industry. In addition to stand-alone present value, the advisors will also form the foundation for a realization of the breakthrough capability of a totally automated design capability. Capital CapitalProjects ProjectsDesign Design

Environment Figure 4.2-1 illustrates the deEnvironment velopment strategy and illuminates the path to success. Scenario-based conceptual design Shared, Shared,Interoperable InteroperableDesign DesignEnvironment Environment will support optimization of the design based on the needs and Scenario-based Scenario-basedConceptual ConceptualDesign Design preferences of the user. The opAutomated timized concepts will support AutomatedRegulatory RegulatoryCompliance Compliance detailed requirements definition Automated AutomatedDesign DesignSystems Systemsand andIntelligent IntelligentDesign DesignTools Tools which, when coupled with data and rules, will enable the creaAutomated AutomatedSystems-Level Systems-LevelDesign Design tion of detailed designs. The system will grow by integrating Homeland HomelandSecurity SecurityDesign DesignAdvisors Advisors design advisors to build systems of systems. As the strategy ma- Figure 4.2-1. Automated Capital Projects Design Environment Project tures, more advanced concepts Structure. like change propagation through the design and automated abstraction of models (models as subsets of models) will be included.

This project offers to the capital projects industry a chance to make a bold move that will position the industry for strong leadership in this new millennium. Task 1: Shared, Interoperable Design Environment – Design conventions and processes and interoperable tools will enable capital projects designers to utilize shared design resources. In some cases, the applications will be limited to individual designers accessing the resources of the design environment and in others it will include collaboration. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 1.1 Design Standards and Rules – Establish common design standards and rules that embrace the best practices of the industry. Ensure that the standards and rules are available to all designers. 1.2 Collaborative Design Environment – Provide a design environment based on the standards and rules of subtask 1, that supports cooperation and collaboration across functional, organizational, and corporate boundaries. 1.3 Capital Projects Distributed Simulation Environment – Provide a comprehensive modeling and simulation environment that links life-cycle decision points with the design environment. This subtask is a point of integration with the lifecycle enterprise model. Task 2: Scenario-Based Conceptual Design – Provide an mathematically and visually accurate capability for the customer to create and evaluate capital project scenarios (combinations of alternatives) to assess the business and technical impacts of design decisions. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows.

January 2003

7-17


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 2.1 Requirements Definition and Prioritization – Provide an environment that enables the migration of user desires and preferences to design requirements and supports the user in determining the relative importance (weighting) of the various preferences. 2.2 Requirements Driven Design Scenarios – Develop the capability to create design scenarios (and, ultimately detailed designs) from customer defined functional, aesthetic, and cost requirements. 2.3 Conceptual Development “Cockpit” – Provide an interactive environment that places the customer/decision maker (in most cases, a team of decision makers) in a “virtual cockpit” enabling real-time trade-off and optimization based on balancing of business and technical alternatives. 2.4 Business Rules Evaluation – Provide specific capability to evaluate alternatives based in business drivers and seeking best value including forecasting capability. 2.5 Scenario Development Tools – Provide toolsets that link modeling and simulation and analysis systems in real-time to support the development and evaluation of scenarios. The scenario development will address all technical and business possibilities. 2.6 Scenario-Based Design Tools – Integrate design systems with the conceptual evaluation systems to automate the creation of designs based on selected scenarios. A requirements database will support this integration. 2.7 Systems Engineering in Scenario Evaluation – Include systems engineering tools and systems of systems capability in the scenario evaluation. Support the build-up of systems from subsystems and the decomposition of systems. Task 3: Automated Regulatory Compliance – Provide design advisors that draw from the knowledge repository and automatically assure regulation compliance. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 3.1 Standards for Regulatory Compliance – Seek a minimum set definition of standards for regulatory compliance. 3.2 Common, Explicit Interpretation of Regulatory Requirements – Provide electronic systems that interact with the human users to eliminate the ambiguity of regulatory compliance and provide positive assurance of compliance. 3.3 Expert Compliance Advisors – Develop knowledge-based expert systems that support the user in assuring compliance. Where possible, compliance will be assured through automated systems with confirmation as the only human interaction. Task 4: Automated Design Systems and Intelligent Design Tools – Develop a rich suite of design conventions and rules that instantiate best practice and support automated design. Utilize these conventions and rules in building a growing set of interoperable design advisors that, in its completion, will support automated design for the capital projects industry. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 4.1 Design Conventions and Rules – For selected modules, develop design conventions that are accepted by the industry as de facto standards for design. Develop rule sets based on these conventions and rules. 4.2 Architecture for Design Advisors – Develop a common framework for the development of design advisors. This framework will support access of needed information and rule sets from the knowledge repository of project 1 and the application of that knowledge in automated creation of design modules. 4.3 Automated Design Modules – Prioritize the areas of need to address the best value opportunities and develop design advisors for those areas. Apply the advisors in automated design systems.

January 2003

7-18


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 4.4 Integrated, Virtual Design and Validation Environment – Building on the conceptual design scenarios, provide a virtual environment whereby automatically created design modules can be linked in systems of systems to assure full satisfaction of design intent. 4.5 Automated Abstraction – Provide the capability to represent the design as a single “object” or master model. Provide the capability to automatically provide models that are subsets of the master model that contain all data and information to support specific applications. For example, an abstraction might be all and only the data needed to support the evaluation of a structure’s ability to withstand wind forces. 4.6 Intelligent Capital Projects Design Models – Provide intelligent design models that, in addition to supporting the automated design, assist the designer in configuring for best performance and best total value. 4.7 Automated Detailed Design Systems – Provide systems that perform the detailed functions of design based on provision of a facility model and requirements. Automated piping, electrical, HVAC, fire protection, etc. are including in this capability. 4.8 Risk-Based Design Advisors – Include user specified risk and uncertainty evaluation in the design advisor development. 4.9 Automated Change Management – Provide the capability to propagate change throughout the design. This capability applies to the initial design and to changes throughout the life of the project (based on changes to the as-built condition). 4.10 Design/Reuse Capability – While the design system will, in the main, be based on automated application of best knowledge, the capability to reuse proven designs and to learn from previous experience will be preserved in the system. Task 5: Automated Systems-Level Design – Provide the capability to design systems by integrating subsystem designs, and to flow-down from the systems level design to the subsystems for distributed execution. The design system will be complete and “closed” in both directions. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows.

5.1 Requirements Flowdown – Develop the capability to parse design requirements and to pass to all organizations and personnel the requirements that impact their operations. 5.2 Automated Abstraction to Subsystems – Develop systems level designs that are rich enough to support decomposition to supply design details for all subsystems. 5.3 Integration of Subsystem Designs – As the converse to subtask 2, the “closure” of the design system will support the flow-up of designs from subsystems to larger subsystems and to full system designs. Task 6: Homeland Security Design Advisors – Provide automated tools that assure the inclusion of security and response issues in all designs. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 6.1 Design Criteria for Threats and Risk Levels – Provide design criteria that maps materials and practices to threat and risk levels. 6.2 “Threat Centric” Design Advisors – Develop design advisors that enable situational design and make visible the options, risks, and costs. 6.3 Placement of Sensors and Monitors – Include in design systems the automated placement and connections for sensors and monitors for optimum security levels based on assessment of the threat. 6.4 Response Built Into Design – Provide response procedures and part of the design process and assure that these procedures are communicated and maintained throughout the lifecycle of the capital project.

January 2003

7-19


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 6.5 Integrity Assessment Based on Design – Provide analysis systems that evaluate facility designs and provide integrity assessments based on threat scenarios. 5.0 PROJECT PLANS Draft project plans for the two proposed projects are provided below.

Figure 5-1. Project Plan for Data/Information/Knowledge Repository Project

January 2003

7-20


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Figure 5-2. Project Plan for Automated Design Environment Project.

6.0 BENEFITS AND BUSINESS CASE The capability to automatically generate the best designs offers breakthrough potential for the capital projects industry. The change from incremental, human dependent, manual design to totally optimized and evaluated design will deliver cost and performance savings in billions of dollars per year. Pervasive use of modeling and simulation and analytical systems will allow new buildings and structures to be designed for total life-cycle performance with greatly reduced, well-understood risks. The business case for automated design is strong. The benefits of success are obvious, but questions remain about the possibility of success. Successes in manufacturing applications in automated design utilizing design advisors, improvements in modeling and simulation systems, and emerging knowledge management strategies point to a strong business case for the technology investment. It can be done, and the

January 2003

7-21


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE time is right to do it. The technology to allow such capability can be realized for much less than the documented costs of single failures that have occurred. For example, the collapse of (examples) The ability to create concepts from preferences, assuring that the customer ‘s needs and desires are met; the evaluation of concepts for selections of the best package solutions; the creation of detailed designs – automatically, and the ability to create a lifecycle model to guide the design, the operation, and the completion of the lifecycle – all of these capabilities will deliver business success. Specific benefits include: • Support for better decision processes • Enhanced innovation with lower risk • Reduced time from decision to operation • Optimization of designs and validation of performance before commitment to build • Lower cost for design, build, and operate • Design for life-cycle efficiency

January 2003

7-22


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

PROJECT4: INTEGRATED PROCUREMENT & SUPPLY NETWORK Contributors Erin Cassidy, Industry Canada Stephen Garnier, Fairfax County Govt. Ed Koch, Bechtel Systems William O'Brien, University of Florida John Osby, DuPont Mark Palmer, NIST Charles Poer, Zachry Construction Corp. Lucio Soibelman, University of Illinois Raymond M. Walker, IMTI, Inc. Richard Wallace, Zachry Construction Corp. 1.0 THE OPPORTUNITY The opportunity for the integrated procurement system is twofold: to include accurate and complete vendor information into the early design and planning processes., and to provide completely automated source selection and physical procurement, from generation of orders to delivery and acceptance of products, materials, and labor. The vision is for the design system to seamlessly interconnect with the supply network, enabling automated specification of procured items based on parameters defined by the project planning system (cost, schedule, quantity, etc.) and by the design system (specifications, tolerances, etc.) to enable rapid creation and implementation of facility designs. The resulting design will include a total procurement package that accurately specifies all needed materials and components, cost and schedule. Automated bid solicitation, vendor certification, source selection, and contract negotiation will slash procurement cost and time. The supply network will be directly integrated with the capital project management system, providing managers continuous visibility into status and progress of every vendor/supplier activity. 2.0 THE PROBLEM The multi-project sourcing strategies and centralized procurement functions now used by many companies to reduce costs requires increased sophistication for specifying, tracking, delivering, and managing product flow. Although some efficiencies are gained, these centralized functions often lack the necessary knowledge and understanding to buy the correct product from a myriad of product variations, or to select the best source on the basis of factors other than unit cost. Proliferation of specifications adds to the problem. In government projects, legislative directives frequently limit a project’s choice of suppliers. Source qualification/selection and getting contracts in place on time can have a significant bearing on overall project schedules. With the procurement and shipment of product and materials globally, significant delays and unanticipated logistics requirements can be encountered, both for materials being shipped to the U.S. and from the U.S. to remote construction sites. The lack of regulatory and logistics standards can generate complications for the scheduling and sequencing of site operations that depend on shipped materials and products. The challenge in managing a complex supply chain is to optimize construction site management with a non-site-specific supply network. The key is to more closely integrate supply with schedule and move to

January 2003

7-23


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE pull-driven construction work processes to supply the job site with procured materials and hardware at the proper time in the schedule to minimize on-site storage, staging, and movement. Some of the same principles of demand-based product flow that work well for manufacturers can and are being applied in construction, although many construction supply chains lack the permanency of typical manufacturer/supplier relationships needed to develop and refine this capability. The delivery of materials and product to the construction site requires a receiving inspection followed by storage, staging, distribution, and tracking. Rarely do delivered materials go from truck to placement except for premixed time-reactive materials such as concrete. Preventing damage or degradation and doing preventive maintenance to keep materials located and build-ready is often a major consideration, especially since many builders stockpile materials to avoid schedule risks. Storing and staging materials onsite is a very ad-hoc process that relies on people who need the material to know its location and know when it needs to be moved into position for use. This final stage of the procurement process is inherently wasteful of site space, results in multiple handling and movement, and consumes significant amounts of non-value added labor cost. 3.0 THE GOAL The vision for Integrated Procurement and Supply defines a globally integrated supply network that will securely deliver stock and custom assemblies and materials as dictated by the master project schedule for respective construction steps, eliminating the need for on-site storage. Automated procurement systems will coordinate delivery in accordance with the evolving demands of the master schedule. Standardized construction items and hardware will become commodity products designed for rapid build. The principles of lean production and demand-based product pull that have transformed much of manufacturing will become the underpinning of the procurement and staging functions for capital projects. The longer-term vision for the integrated supply network relies on accurate and complete electronic procurement packages, including 3-D product definitions, material properties, and supporting analytical models of all components to be manufactured and materials to be provided. This product data will be output from the design system and delivered to the vendors and fabricators along with cost and schedule requirements. A global electronic procurement network will automatically identify and solicit qualified bidders and support evaluation of source capabilities and assured ability to deliver. The project management system will interface with the respective suppliers’ management systems to maintain continuous visibility of progress in manufacture/fabrication and order fulfillment, enabling the project managers to identify any schedule or quality issues as soon as they arise. This will enable the project team to attack supplier problems before they impact the master project schedule. The master schedule, linked to the master facility life-cycle model, will be continuously synchronized with the actual progress of the project. The site monitoring and tracking system will compare daily construction progress against the plan and coordinate the continuous flow of materials and assemblies to the point of need from qualified suppliers. The model will continuously update itself to reflect actual performance, while flagging any variances for management attention. The site asset tracking and control system will enable workers to instantly locate the resources they need and get them delivered for immediate use. 4.0 SOLUTION APPROACH The solution approach for the integrated procurement and supply network recognizes that the supply network is far more complex than just the supplier companies that interact with a capital project. The approach, as shown in Figure 4-1, has two principal thrusts that create the foundation for integration of multiple systems. These thrusts are based on: 1) methods for transforming the data, information, and

January 2003

7-24


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE communications to significantly improve the effectiveness of the procurement process; and 2) technologies and methods to integrate the multiple systems associated with the procurement process and communication with the supply network. The basic communication and exchange of data and information in the supply network requires a common language at a basic level. Prior to electronic integration of systems and the automation of procurement, data interoperability needs will require the development of naming conventions and technical and cost description standards for materials, fasteners, building components, and hardware that is procured globally. Communication protocols and standards will go beyond normal procurement requirements to include security certifications and expedited logistics processes to avoid delays in transit of product between regions with differing regulations and export requirements.

Figure 4-1. Integrated Procurement & Supply Network Project Thrusts

The process of procuring the necessary resources, materials, and products for a capital project must be integrated with other critical design and business processes associated with the functioning construction enterprise. The functions and systems associated with engineering and design, planning and scheduling, material management and tracking, intelligent control systems, human resources, accounting, and collaboration systems for the enterprise all interact with the effective procurement of materials and product. Task 1: Transformation of Supply Chains. This task is structured to address the significant problems encountered today in procurement for large construction projects. Detailed specifications for data formats, information content, user interfaces, transaction protocols, and linkage to different business systems will be developed and validated to enable a comprehensive systems engineering and operational model for an Internet-based global supply web. An additional consideration for improving the transactions and tracking of product flows are the implications for enhanced security including improved tracking and visibility of material across an international supply network. The activities to be conducted in this task are as follows: 1.1 Standards for Procurement and Supply Chain Transactions: Data interoperability in an open architecture environment will be enabled by developing naming conventions, communication and transaction protocols, common data representation standards, and interfaces between various classes of user. These standards will include methods for secure certification and transportation logistics for materials and product procured internationally to provide trusted capability/responsibility for inspection, certification, and product assurance. This will also reduce the requirement for the onerous receiving inspections typically performed when materials arrive at the job site. 1.2 Standardized Rules and Processes for Optimized Traffic & Logistics: This task will develop and implement standardized methods for procurement and transport of purchased items. Responding to the increasing problem of delivery uncertainties and delays of globally procured products, this task will establish expedited processes for the logistics of transporting items between locations and regions with different export, import, and border regulations. This task will investigate the ability to develop federally mandated traffic and logistics standards to help product flow domestically. 1.3 Evaluation of Supply Chain Structures. This task will develop supplier and supply chain performance measures and metrics, and catalog, identify, and evaluate different procurement business models and supply chain structures for differing supply chain classes, including emerging webbased and E-commerce networks. Industry-wide shared reference models and databases of performance history and lessons learned about suppliers and products will be developed, with provi-

January 2003

7-25


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE sion for validation of performance claims and adverse information. Standard, automated certification protocols and systems will be developed for all classes of construction project suppliers along with generic cost/performance models for each class. 1.4

Accessible Product Models. This task will develop standardized on-line materials/parts/ components catalogs that can be interrogated remotely by the project design system to determine applicability of products to the project design. Capabilities will be provided to ascertain pricing and availability data (quantity and schedule), and link this information along with comprehensive product models (providing CAD geometry, material char5acterization, performance attributes, and supporting analytical models) into the master facility life cycle model to support all early engineering and business/project management processes and thus streamline the procurement process.

Task 2: Integration of Procurement Systems with other Project Delivery Systems. This task is structured to build from the common data representations and methods established in Task 1 and develop and deploy the technologies, models, and software to integrate the procurement systems with the project master model to link all of the functional elements of the design and build project. This integration of systems will optimize the cost, timing, and sequencing of procured materials and product to the Intelligent Job Site for the benefit of reduced indirect labor, increased effectiveness of supply network communications, reductions in cost and the compression of build time for the construction project. 2.1 Automated Inventory Management and Resource Feed. This task will develop methods to support optimized construction sequencing at each site using min-max or “pull� procurement strategies that have been applied effectively in manufacturing. Automated replenishment technologies to manage inventories of site-stored supplies and materials will be developed to remove the need for human inventory reconciliation. Min-max models and quantity triggers for auto-replenishment will be developed based on predictive understanding of resources needed by planned construction sequence. Smart labeling and sensor technologies that enable materials and product to notify the job site system model of its status and location when it arrives at site will be developed and deployed. Technologies that allow labor resource information such as location, capabilities, and certifications to be transmitted in real time and processed by the job site management system will be developed and demonstrated. 2.2 Design Change Integration and Propagation to Supply Chain. This task will develop the procurement system links to the master facility life cycle model such that validated design changes are capable of triggering responses and events to procurement of materials, products, labor, and equipment. Mechanisms for communicating requirements changes to the supply network will be developed, including feedback mechanisms to verify change acceptance 2.3 Smart Feedback Mechanisms and Data Brokering: This task will develop methods and project management system requirements to enable feedback information and data to be linked to the master project life cycle model through the procurement system, providing immediate visibility of schedule, cost, sequencing, and logistics impacts. 2.4 Integration of Procurement and Project Control Systems: This task will develop system interfaces to the project management and control system for monitoring and reporting of cost/schedule status and work progress based on the consumption levels of procured labor and materials, including automatic alerts for variances and trends. This effort will include developing the linkages to integrate procurement actions, specification, ordering, and delivery of materials to the planning and scheduling of construction operations in the intelligent job site. System functionality will include immediate and current access to site performance data including cost, availability, capacity, quality, production/shipping status, and other vendor/supplier data as needed to support all aspects of project management and execution. Appropriate means for protecting competitive data, authorizing access to the data, and tailoring of information for diverse users will also be addressed in this task.

January 2003

7-26


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 2.5 Integration of Construction and Supply Chain with Regulatory Requirements: This task will develop the system links to integrate data on the status of procured materials and task sequencing with the required and planned inspections, certifications, and notification of other reporting requirements to satisfy local and government regulatory requirements. 5.0 PROJECT PLAN The summary-level project plan for the Integrated Procurement and Supply Network is shown in Figure 5-1, detailing the activities associated with the two major tasks in this project.

Integrated Procurement & Supply Network

Year 1 1

2

3

Year 2 4

1

2

3

Year 3 4

1

2

3

Year 4 4

1

2

3

4

Transformation of Supply Chains Standards for Procurement and Supply Chain Transactions Standardized Rules and Processes for Optimized Logistics Evaluation of Supply Chain Structures Accessible Product Models Procurement & Product Delivery Systems Integration Automated Inventory Management and Resources Design Change Integration and Propagation to Supply Chain Feedback Mechanism and Data Brokering Integration of Construction Supply Chain with Regulatory Requirements

Figure 5-1. Integrated Procurement and Supply Network Project Plan 6.0 BENEFITS AND BUSINESS CASE The benefits of an integrated procurement system are based on maximizing the value that the constructor receives from the supply base. The primary considerations are the cost of the items procured and the delivery performance of the supply network producing the item. Quality is a given in most manufactured product environments, and procurement functions typically work from lists of suppliers that provide quality products. The interaction of the procurement organization with the suppliers on cost and price is far from standardized except for typical manufactured catalog components and equipment. There are few current feedback mechanisms for communicating valuable delivery information to the job site; the integrated procurement system would fill that gap. Methods common in manufacturing, such as consignment inventory concepts, are just emerging as a job site benefit and will be expanded to practice in the integrated systems.

January 2003

7-27


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE The integrated procurement function will be a primary enabler of a number of cost and time reduction benefits. Synchronizing of product deliveries to the job site will reduce construction site labor, space, and build time. Orchestrating the timely delivery of supplied material from multiple parallel sources will benefit from information flow to and from the supply base such that the constantly changing construction site status and delivery requirements are communicated outward while the change response and impacts are fed back to the site master schedule. Specific benefits to the typical capital project include: • Lower acquisition cost of procured items from expanded interaction with global sources. • Reduced mistaken orders through more highly standardized product nomenclature. • Reduced indirect labor by the automatic generation of purchase orders, specifications, and delivery schedules based on access to the master facility life cycle model. • Significant reduction in job site space required for receiving, storage, and staging enabled by just-intime product delivery from the supply base. • Inventory minimization for common supply items through the use of automated replenishment strategies based on min-max models and restock triggers provided electronically to suppliers. • Highly visible schedules from multiple parallel supply chain activities enable a highly synchronized job site for time compression. • Highly integrated material flow “pulled” to job site – reduces time and amount of staged and stored material on job site. • Reductions in working capital requirements as a result of synchronized delivery and minimized inventories. • Automatic generation of billing and invoicing based upon work package completion and monitored resource consumption will reduce indirect labor in several functions. • Reduced delays associated with product delivery from differing low-price regions. • Reduced multiple data entry and data errors associated with manual input of supplier-provided data. • Elimination of most on-site receiving inspections for delivered products.

January 2003

7-28


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

PROJECT 5: NEW MATERIALS, METHODS, & PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION Contributors Erin Cassidy, Industry Canada Stephen Garnier, Fairfax County Govt. Ed Koch, Bechtel Systems William O'Brien, University of Florida John Osby, DuPont Mark Palmer, NIST Charles Poer, Zachry Construction Corp. Lucio Soibelman, University of Illinois Raymond M. Walker, IMTI, Inc. Richard Wallace, Zachry Construction Corp. 1.0 THE OPPORTUNITY There is a significant opportunity to reduce the time and cost of constructing facilities and structures by compressing time, reducing labor content, and reducing the cost and amount of materials. New, lightweight, high-strength materials and components that are fabricated, assembled, and applied by intelligent automated construction systems will radically reduce these primary elements of cost while greatly extending the life span, performance, and flexibility of both facilities and structures, including resiliency to accidents and catastrophic events. Flexible and “programmable� properties will enable materials to be easily transported, placed, formed, and attached with little or no cure times or temporary support structures. Improved strength-to-weight ratios, thermal properties, and other properties will enable the design and construction of facilities that radically extend the envelope of what is possible to build, allowing greatly expanded capacity, performance architectural creativity, and functionality for all types of facilities. 2.0 THE PROBLEM There has been little change over the past few decades in basic materials and methods used in capital construction. The industry remains dominated by concrete, steel, and the methods required to place and assemble them. While advances in construction equipment and in secondary systems such as windows, interior surfaces, exterior finished surfaces, and roofing have led to better safety, energy efficiency, lower environmental impact, reduced maintenance, and improved durability, the basic methods of constructing primary structures have changed little since the advent of electricity. Construction processes and methods continue to be incrementally improved. Many innovations have sped up the build process, reducing construction time and cost. Innovations in joining and unitary design technologies have replaced labor-intensive bolting and riveting with engineered connections that use slotted joints locked by rapid welds. Trends such as these, while improving the use of traditional construction materials, are setting the stage for breakthroughs in the fundamental ways that structures are designed and assembled. Materials of construction may continue to be evolutionary instead of revolutionary. Concrete, steel, and lumber continue to dominate the industry; however there is upward price pressure on wood products. Since the driver is performance at low cost, the rising prices for wood have made steel studs cost-effective alternatives. Hybrid materials such as plastic fiber-reinforced wood laminates have extended the yield and

January 2003

7-29


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE application of laminate structure by improving the consistency, stability, and capability of wood-based products. Many other fiber reinforcement strategies are being investigated for enhancing the capabilities of traditional materials. Structure insulated panel systems (SIPS), modules that provide insulation and structural support and lock in place, may be the forerunner of the next wave of wall construction. Steel dominates the structural applications, with continuing emphasis toward lighter-weight, higher-strength materials. Cost-effective composite structures appear promising for some applications; however, the slow development of business opportunities is a significant barrier to acceptance of new material systems. Composite technologies are being developed for use in many types of structures, including enhancement and refurbishment of existing structures. The economics of alternate materials are being studied to understand the dynamics of manufacturing and placement costs, which are highly influenced by market volumes and building codes. Concrete is inexpensive and readily available; however, it is difficult to transport and place, and curing times slow construction progress. Efficient pumping, precision placement, and prefabricated, modular forming systems are providing improvements, but overall the pace of progress is slow. The basic manufacturing processes for production of the elements of concrete (cement, aggregate, and functional additives) have followed basic improvement trends for cost, energy efficiency, and cycle time reduction. Future directions for concrete are toward faster cure rates, easier placement, lighter weight, and higher strength for thinner layers; however, these represent incremental advances. A highly fragmented and inherently small-company industrial base inhibits advances and leadership for research into alternate materials, production, and delivery methods. Innovative ways to apply technologies such as lightweight, prefabricated aerated concrete structures and steel-free concrete decking systems are expanding the use of traditional materials, but are not forcing the development of alternate materials to replace industry norms. There is little incentive for innovation, testing, and certification of new materials and processes by individual companies.

3.0 THE GOAL The goal for new materials and methods is to support and enable the rapid, low-cost construction of modularized, lightweight structures in a fraction of current time spans by applying automated equipment and highly engineered assembly methods with zero waste and zero rework. Advances in protectants and coatings will extend the life of many material systems. New high-performance material systems will be rapidly inserted into use and application via expedited testing, certification, and approval processes. 4.0 SOLUTION APPROACH The approach for new materials and methods will require further investigation in a structured effort to develop a comprehensive plan to address the priority needs of industry. The San Antonio 2001 and Virginia 2002 workshop participants identified a broad base of materials needs, but concluded that establishment of a focus group to develop specific plans would be the appropriate next step. In general, the workshop participants concurred that requirements for materials should address: • More comprehensive testing over the product life cycle to better understand long-term failure and degradation modes • Incentives for development, piloting, and introduction of new and enhanced materials • Increased interaction with other industry sectors (e.g., aerospace and manufacturing) to leverage commonalties and innovations

January 2003

7-30


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Strategies for disaster recovery and mitigating the impact of widespread product failures with disastrous impact, including financial, health, and safety aspects • Liability reforms based on better product knowledge and improved testing methods • Emphasis on new materials and methods to reduce costs. The next recommended step is to conduct a Materials Needs Assessment which would assess a broad range of material and process opportunities and extend the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap to address the specifics of materials requirements. The initial scope of the assessment will be to consider the needs and requirements from future facilities and construction perspective, followed by an analysis of materials solutions that support the present roadmap goals as follows: • Materials For Extended-Life, Low Cost, Reconfigurable Facilities & Structures – Conduct detailed assessment of idealized building systems and requirements to determine the optimum materials and assembly technologies to support the concept of a low-cost, long-life, reconfigurable structure or building as well as improvements to current construction methods. Apply science-based analysis tools to reverse-engineer materials needs to drive the research agenda for construction systems. Determine the economic and financial drivers to substantiate the need for new and enhanced materials. Recommend projects suitable for pilots of new materials systems. • Materials Needs Assessment – Identify and characterize near- and long-term materials and processing needs and concepts for the construction industry. Develop business cases for investments in material and process technologies that will increase labor productivity, reduce build time and material costs, and improve operational durability and maintainability. The scope of the needs assessment should emphasize four aspects of materials needs previously identified to develop strategic roadmaps: accelerated insertion and approval, new and enhanced materials, innovative manufacturing and processing, and smart materials. Figure 4-1 suggests a range of topics to be considered based on information gathered in the workshops. Near-term actions would be to convene an invited group of construction concept experts and materials

Figure 4-1. Suggested Scope of Materials Needs Assessment Tasks.

January 2003

7-31


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE and processing experts including representatives from the academic and research community, materials providers, and users from the supplier and constructor communities. The construction visionaries would bring concepts and examples of preferences and requirements with examples and descriptions of breakthrough levels of change and improvement desired for the future. Based on these definitions of what is needed, the group will develop and prioritize a range of projects, tasks, and requirements to guide the research and application communities, and provide the basis for industry collaboration to secure funded projects to develop new capabilities.

5.0 PROJECT PLAN A summary-level project plan for the next-step activities is shown in Figure 5-1.

New Materials, Methods, & Products

Year 1 1

2

3

Year 2 4

1

2

3

Year 3 4

1

2

3

4

Materials Needs Assessment Select Host Site and Define Invitee List Needs Assessment Workshop Develop Draft Plan Based on Workshop Guidance Develop White Papers & Project Slate Collaborate for Funded Projects

Figure 5-1. Project Plan for New Materials, Methods, and Products

6.0 BENEFITS AND BUSINESS CASE The development and deployment of new materials, manufacturing methods, and products for the construction industry will be based on economic justification combined with performance improvements over the life of a facility or structure. There is significant opportunity for new materials, joining technologies, and automated processes to reduce traditional build times to a fraction of today’s norms, reduce the direct labor content required to manufacture and assemble, and eliminate a significant amount of non-valueadded indirect labor content. Costs in all forms will be considered when assessing the need for, and development of, a new material or process. The economics of a new process will be compared to current practice, and cost and time advantage will be quantified to build a sound business case for pursuing specific technologies.

January 2003

7-32


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

PROJECT 6: INTELLIGENT JOB SITE Contributors Erin Cassidy, Industry Canada Stephen Garnier, Fairfax County Govt. Ed Koch, Bechtel Systems William O'Brien, University of Florida John Osby, DuPont Mark Palmer, NIST Charles Poer, Zachry Construction Corp. Lucio Soibelman, University of Illinois Raymond M. Walker, IMTI, Inc. Richard Wallace, Zachry Construction Corp. 1.0 THE OPPORTUNITY While the engineering and design environments of the capital projects industry have maintained pace with other industry sectors, fundamental construction processes, and build techniques have changed little; the industry is a distant follower in adopting the kinds of transformations that have revolutionized other sectors such as manufacturing. By applying the principles of lean thinking, synchronous product flow, and six sigma, opportunities are abundant for dramatic time reduction, elimination of redundant handling and movement of material and components, fewer quality problems and accidents, reduced loss and waste, more efficient site space management, and increased productivity of the construction site workforce. These opportunities are directly related to the capital cost as well as the profitability and competitiveness of all entities in the enterprise. The Intelligent Job Site is one of the key enablers to significantly reducing the cost and time to construct a large facility. 2.0 THE PROBLEM The construction element of the capital projects industry is in a state of flux as it responds to dramatic changes brought on by the Information Age. Companies are strategically changing to do more and better work with fewer resources in response to increasingly tighter margins. Technology-based systems handle many construction-related tasks in new ways, but the multiplicity of these new tools and the fact that few of these tools “talk� to each other adds an element of chaos to businesses that are trying hard to streamline their processes. Currently, information sharing is inefficient and requires frequent meetings with owners, contractors, subcontractors, engineers, laborers, and others. Site computing systems are not standardized or able to interact with other systems to provide more than limited information. The challenge in materials management is to optimize site management with a non-site-specific supply network. The demand is to more closely integrate supply with schedule, and move to pull-driven construction to supply the job site with procured materials, hardware, and equipment at the proper time in the schedule to minimize on-site storage, staging, and movement. Some of the same principles of demandbased pull that work well for manufacturers are being applied in construction in a limited way. Information regarding project status, personnel, workflow, and equipment/material location and status must be captured using processes and systems that keep all participants on track doing what needs to be done. A common problem is that construction engineering documentation often does not provide adequate information to get the job done effectively. This problem spans issues from the awareness and availability of specifications and compliance regulations, to matching of needs and capabilities on a global basis. The

January 2003

7-33


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE norm is reliance on the experience and expertise of the staff and crew. The skills of the workforce are by and large excellent, and this state of affairs does get the job done – albeit not as well as it might. The human element is always a huge factor in construction, and turnover (especially in crafts), training, union issues, and a shrinking skilled labor pool are challenges without easy solutions. In today’s increasingly mechanized world, an additional challenge is to determine how to transform skills and job content to keep pace with the increasing sophistication of the job site. As with the automotive sector, construction is moving steadily into a realm where workers operate machines and use processes that replace skilled craftsmen (e.g., pipe welders) with automated processes and robotics. Management isn’t necessarily cognizant of workforce technology proficiency, and much technology isn’t packaged and hardened to be usable in the demanding environment of construction sites. Managing the shift from to-day’s workforce – built on individual skill and pride in performance to tomorrow’s activity-driven environment – is a looming challenge.

3.0 THE GOAL The vision for the Intelligent Job Site is of a fully sensed and responsively controlled work site. The master facility life-cycle model, created in the planning phase of the project and fleshed out in the design and procurement phases, will define what materials, equipment, tools, labor, and inspections will be needed on what schedule, define the work processes and build plan, and provision the resources as required. Enabled by comprehensive sensing and monitoring assets, the site management system will provide full and current knowledge of what materials and workers are on site, where they are, and the status of their progress and availability. This will also provide dramatic improvements in site security and safety, which will reduce insurance costs and virtually eliminate losses from theft of materials and equipment. Wireless devices will provide continuous real-time communication across the site, enabling workers to instantly access requirements for the task at hand and draw on the construction knowledge base for detailed instruction or refresher training. Coupled to site sensing systems linked to the master facility model and build plan, the communications network will support continuous monitoring of progress and performance. This will enable any errors or deviations to be immediately identified for corrective action. The site management system will provide automatic resource inventory monitoring and reorder as well as continuous reporting of progress against the plan, thus freeing construction engineers and foremen of nonvalue-added data entry tasks. Continuous visibility of progress will enable just-in-time coordination of resources and scheduling of progress-dependent activities such as inspections. A key factor in making the intelligent construction site a reality is a flexible, knowledgeable workforce that makes best use of time and resources in both expected and unforeseen situations. These workers are not just certified in a particular craft skill, but will have broad knowledge of construction and its associated technologies, and will work as partners with the project management team to rapidly conceive and implement the best solutions for any problem. Workforce efficiency, quality of work, and safety will be enhanced by technological advances in construction processes and equipment. Structures will be designed for minimal site excavation and preparation with innovative foundation strategies that establish a secure ground interface, with minimization of underground utilities, structure, and facilities such that structures can be rapidly erected. On-site power generation using high-efficiency solar conversion technology and other alternative energy sources, zerodischarge water recycling, and all-wireless communications will greatly reduce the need for external utility connections as well as enhance security and disaster response. Rapid-erecting modular structures that are highly engineered for placement, joining and assembly, and automated processes, will greatly reduce build time and cost as well as reduce craft labor skill requirements.

January 2003

7-34


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 4.0 SOLUTION APPROACH Creating the intelligent job site will require a balance between improving three critical components that must work together for effective construction operations (Figure 4-1): • The workforce and management of people • Work processes • Delivery of the proper information to point of need. Intelligence in construction operations requires three basic functions: sensing, translation and understanding, and action. Technologies and methods for data capture are a significant element of the equation. Fast delivery of accurate, complete data and information to the job site and collection of data Figure 4-1. The Intelligent Job Site balfrom the job site and supply infrastructure are essential. Howances people, processes, and deliverables. ever, transforming information to actionable tasks and activities requires an evolved workforce, not only on the construction site, but in engineering and management. The translation of data into knowledge is critical for determining what can be done with the information and how it is delivered to the appropriate function in construction operations. A workforce that can efficiently access the information to make full use of it will shorten build times, reduce cost, and smooth start up and commissioning. The proposed project involves three subprojects (Figure 4-2) as discussed in the following sections. The strategy uses initial demonstration pilots based on essentially offthe-shelf technologies to demonstrate the fundamental integration of the needed information and systems, identify gaps in technologies for further development, and support refinement of solution approaches. In addition, business justification for the intelligent job site must be quantified to support the inFigure 4-2. Project Structure for Intelligent Job Site vestment needed to achieve the goals. This Initiative. strategy will more clearly direct additional projects to develop and implement data capture and delivery technologies and guide the transformation of today’s craft-based workforce into a multiskilled adaptable workforce capable of effectively exploiting technologies and reengineered work processes. 4.1 Integration Pilot for Work Process Transformation The objective of this sub-project is to demonstrate and investigate the ability to integrate existing technologies via an open architecture system and real-time information and communication exchange to execute an intelligent construction project. This initial activity is critical for defining detailed requirements for the Enabling Technologies and Workforce Transformation sub-projects. A basic project simulation model for the intelligent job site should integrate all the participating systems, keeping them operational in realistic job site conditions. The output from this project will be an understanding of the opportunities, barriers and risks for implementing an intelligent job site. The project should integrate different independent systems including costs and scheduling requirements. A first action will be to define standards for linkages among the multitude of existing systems, and pro-

January 2003

7-35


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE vide those standards for subsequent incorporation in emerging systems. The systems that control work processes to be integrated in the initial pilot would include, but not be limited to, the following typical needs of a construction site: • • • • • • • • •

Planning and scheduling Supply chain management Material management and equipment tracking CAD Accounting and cost control (quantity and progress tracking) Document management Permitting, inspection and approval Personnel management including training, human resources and safety Collaboration, including vendors and subcontractors.

The efforts and activities associated with the integration of systems in this sub-project will be highly valuable in pinpointing gaps and solution strategies. In addition, identification of the economic benefits and business justification for stakeholders will be critical to gain corporate and government support and gain resources and momentum to carry the project forward. The Integration Pilot project is structured in major tasks as outlined in Figure 4.1-1. This structure will enable the pilot to gain acceptance with company managers as it is organized to define and solve fundamental issues of work processes and workforce as the prerequisite to developing the supporting technolo-

Figure 4.1-1. Task Structure for Integration Pilot for Work Process Transformation.

January 2003

7-36


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE gies. If this pilot cannot integrate the basic job site systems using the extensive technology at hand today, then a technology project alone would be difficult to justify. 4.2 Enabling Technologies for Enhanced Data Capture and Utilization The objective of this sub-project is to develop and deploy tools for automated data collection, information capture, and feedback from the job site to eliminate manual data entry tasks while improving data integrity. Much of the needed technology exists to link different systems, but real-time data feeds from the job site (such as wireless communications) are needed to enable true integration. Models can integrate the systems, but providing the data and processed information to feed the models is highly resource-intensive. For the effective utilization of this expanse of information, the data feeds need to happen automatically, with minimal worker effort or intervention. Providers of software and technology for wireless, automatic, and remote data gathering need to be given guidance and specifications by the construction industry based on the realities of both the complexity of construction operations and the rugged environment in which inherently fragile technologies must robustly perform. While computer-integrated construction sites offer high potential to improve productivity and reduce build time, the accompanying transformation of work processes and the workforce must be a critical consideration in the requirements, preferences, and specifications communicated to the technology provider community. The strategy for this sub-project (Figure 4.2-1) is based on developing an understanding of the data and information utilization patterns and criteria of the current job site environment, and projecting those uses to a future transformed intelligent site. Benchmarking current technologies and best practice uses of data gathering in other industry sectors will support development of a requirements prospectus. As part of the direction to technology providers, common data standards would be developed to support the open architecture for the myriad of sysFigure 4.2-1. Task Structure for Technologies for Enhanced tems and sensors in the inData Capture and Utilization. telligent job site. 4.3 Framework for Workforce Transformation The objective of this sub-project is to develop a new workforce paradigm that transforms and optimizes the ability of different types of workers to make full use of captured knowledge, advanced information delivery mechanisms, and next-generation automated systems. This transformation spans the scope of a capital project from project design, management, execution, operations, and life-cycle support. Successful implementation of the Intelligent Job Site requires motivation of the people involved, and restructuring of the skill set needed for construction operations. The workforce must be capable, near-term, of enabling actual job sites to use the technology that is already available, while preparing for the next generation of advances. Achieving these goals requires culture change and business incentives for all parties – craft workers, engineers, managers, owners, and others associated with delivery of the project. The concept of a highly sensed construction site and workers interacting more extensively with the integrated systems providing construction information modeling, communication, and project visualization will require additional skills in appropriate handling and reaction to instruction. In the intelligent job site,

January 2003

7-37


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE information will be moving between software systems, humans, and machines, whereas today information is primarily exchanged between humans. Another significant change to the current state of workforce performance and workflows is the challenge to significantly reduce build time in the intelligent job site. This compression will come from performing more operations simultaneously, and closing the typical gaps between sequential tasks. This higher degree of site workflow orchestration will require the workforce to function in an integrated and coordinated manner, which is a critical element of the transformed workforce. The output from the Workforce Transformation activity will bring industry and academic focus to definition of skills and migration strategies to reach the desired state. One fundamental effort will to establish a collaborative industry think-tank dedicated to defining the skill sets associated with current and envisioned technologies. Another standing team will be established to define current and emerging knowledge-based tools that will be used by the workforce, to frame needed training and educational initiatives. Developing industry-wide consensus for on-demand training tools that reward the self-development of the knowledge-based workforce will be a priority. This team could charter sub-teams of specific industry specialists, or they could enlist assistance from standing CII/FIATECH task teams to forge specific objectives associated with evolving the workforce. The project would also address incentives at all levels of the workforce. An industry task team will be created to specifically address the issue of defining various innovative strategies for compensating workers that pursue and acquire knowledge-based skills. These incentives will be critical for the development of “professional� construction workers with the necessary skills, education, and training to be an effective knowledge worker for the future intelligent construction environment. The task structure for the Framework for Workforce Transformation project is shown in Figure 4.3-1.

Figure 4.3-1. Task Structure for Framework for Workforce Transformation

5.0 PROJECT PLAN The Project Plan for the Intelligent Job Site is defined in the following figures, with Figure 5-1 detailing the first major task, the Integration Pilot for Work Process Transformation. The task structure for this effort was developed to include subtask level of detail in recognition of the higher priority to initiate this pilot project. The Integration Pilot for Work Process Transformation Task is also included at the summary task level in the overall Intelligent Job Site plan shown in Figure 5-2.

January 2003

7-38


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Figure 5-1. Integration Pilot for Work Process Transformation Project Plan.

Figure 5-2. Summary-Level Project Plan for Intelligent Job Site.

January 2003

7-39


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 6.0 BENEFITS AND BUSINESS CASE The Intelligent Job Site will yield significant benefits beyond construction operations, that impact upstream engineering and planning functions and the downstream activities associated with startup, commissioning, and operation and maintenance of the capital facility. The primary benefits of the intelligent job site will be significantly reduced construction time and cost, high-fidelity documentation of the asbuilt facility, reduced errors and rework, improved safety and security, and highly efficient supply of materials and product to the job site. Specific benefits that impact nearly all business and site operations are: • Communication between constructor and engineer will dramatically improve by using a modeldriven, highly sensed and wired environment. Problem resolution can approach being instantaneous. • The model-driven job site can rapidly adjust for unconstructable situations and delivery of alternate approaches and solutions using the master facility model to link engineering to construction sites on different continents. Using streamlined workflows, necessary approvals can be expedited though the model. • The performance of staff, utilization of assets, individual components, and facility processes can be compared to budgets and schedule on any appropriate time interval, to provide immediate visibility of performance to plan and responsiveness to cost and time variances. In addition, high-fidelity documentation of actual spending during construction will greatly improve the accuracy of future frontend estimating in the planning and design phases. • Tracking systems will process data to produce graphics and reports showing trends, comparisons against budgets or other goals. • Over 98% of required data will be automatically captured, resulting in unprecedented accuracy and timeliness for documentation during construction as well as for as-built documentation for O&M. • Constructors will have access to detailed, high-fidelity visualizations of what they are building. • Highly visible sequencing and schedules from multiple parallel activities will enable increased concurrency of activities to reduce build time. • Highly integrated material flow “pulled” to job site will reduce the time and amount of site area required for staging and storing material on the job site. • Database and inference engines in the master facility model will automatically generate work orders, specify needed supplied materials, and schedule workforce timed to the construction sequence. • The intelligent job site will result in reduced non-functional activities such as requests for information, site searches for misplaced materials, and manual tracking and data gathering in all forms that require an indirect labor function. • Elimination of misplaced or stolen materials, products, tools, and equipment and the associated work delays will reduce cost and schedule variances. • Working capital requirements will be reduced by “delivery when needed” material flow to the job site that minimizes inventory needs. • The future worker will be more proactive and productive since they will have access to the sensed and interpreted output of thousands of devices every day. • Tailored, updated information filtered from collected raw data will give clear visibility of progress and status across entire project. • Elimination of redundant data entry and entry errors.

January 2003

7-40


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

PROJECT 7: INTELLIGENT FACILITY LIFE-CYCLE OPTIMIZATION Contributors James Dempsey, U.S. Coast Guard William Iler, Bentley Systems Chris Norris, National Research Council of Canada Kenneth Olmsted, Smithsonian Institution Mark Owens, BWXT Y-12 Judith W. Passwaters, DuPont Sylvia Rappenecker, Dow Chemical Jack Snell, NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory Jorge Vanegas, Georgia Tech 1.0 THE OPPORTUNITY Emerging technologies offer tremendous potential to improve industry’s ability to operate and maintain capital facilities more effectively, affordably, and responsively across their entire life cycle. Modeling and simulation tools offer the capability to optimize facility designs for long-term performance and sustainability – and the capability to use the design models to manage facility performance with far greater effectiveness. Intelligent sensing, intelligent control, and information integration technologies offer continuously improving capabilities to predict and monitor facility and process health and performance, enabling owner/operators to make smarter decisions with regard to facility management, upgrades, refurbishment, and other life-cycle actions. These technologies also offer the potential to capture a wealth of operational performance data that can be fed back to the enterprise planning and design functions to benefit future projects. This project proposes to develop, integrate, and demonstrate subsets of these technologies to validate the potential and value of concepts for total life-cycle optimization of capital facilities. 2.0 THE PROBLEM Engineering of new technologies into process and facility systems is complex and costly. Operation and maintenance of existing facilities is overwhelmingly focused on maintaining steady-state functionality, dealing with day-to-day performance problems, and responding to external drivers such as changes in business demands or regulatory requirements. Incorporation of new technologies is done on a casespecific basis where the investments can be justified on clear arguments substantiated by near-term, bottom-line ROI. The design of new facilities and major facility upgrades tends to follow the same pattern, with incremental improvements to specific facility and process features. Strong pressure to limit acquisition costs, inflexible design and change management processes, regulatory complexity, and technology risk aversion all drive facility designers and owner/operators to emphasize near-term needs ahead of long-term performance. Issues such as aging of structures and equipment, outyear maintenance, and eventual facility decommissioning receive only limited attention in the project planning process relative to the design and construction efforts. While individual industries and companies are taking advantage of advanced sensing, control, and modeling and simulation technologies, the applications are almost universally at the equipment and system level in unit processes where 100% continuous quality control is critical to performance – chemical and

January 2003

7-41


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE drug manufacturing being prime examples. However, the benefits of these technologies are not yet being extended to the facility level, and tremendous opportunities for larger-scale benefits are being missed. Facility managers are widely lacking in automated tools to gather, integrate, analyze, and interpret all of the information needed to understand the state of their facility and operations in a system-of-systems context; to gain an accurate and time-based picture of future needs; and to deal with problems and changing requirements with strategies that go beyond point solutions. All good facility managers understand that day-to-day decisions have collective consequences downstream in the facility life cycle, but these consequences are virtually impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy due to the lack of good models and the lack of fidelity and interoperability of the models that do exist. Not only is there a need to thoroughly assess life-cycle requirements in order to optimize the facility design for full life-cycle performance (including total cost of ownership), there is a compelling need to be able to capture lessons learned from O&M activities and feed this knowledge back to the project planning and design functions to benefit new projects as well as upgrades and sustainment activities. Billions of dollars of assets are on the ground today that are completely lacking in tools for real-time measurable facility condition assessment and integration of legacy data systems to support facility management requirements. Optimizing facility performance requires definition of the best strategies for operating and maintaining the facility up front, and continual evaluation and “tuning” over time as the facility ages and the business environment changes. Owners/operators must also accept a greater role as facility stewards in addition to traditional responsibilities for profit/loss and regulatory compliance. Decisions regarding decommissioning, recycling, or adaptive reuse and remediation also affect the community as well as the environment; each option must be clearly understood and assessed based on expected end of service life for the facility. Security is another issue that is now a critical concern in every activity. However, the process of making best decisions concerning facility assets is influenced by a wide range of interrelationships and variables, both internal and external to the enterprise, that are not sufficiently well understood (or not easily characterized) to enable modeling for decision processing. O&M decisions also tend to be driven by discrete events, such as equipment failures or changes in facility demand. Changes in the market, regulations, liabilities, and new security requirements in response to the events of 9/11 also contribute to the complexity owner/operators face in assessing requirements and related business cases for facility maintenance, modification, refurbishment, and other life-cycle actions on top of the need to guide daily operations effectively. The information required to accurately assess the current landscape is often missing, inaccurate, incomplete, and difficult to translate to useful forms. Owner/operators have a wealth of information but have no protocols for interoperability to support integrated decision making within their organizations or across industry. Universal and open standards are needed to enable industry wide efficiencies. Specific deficiencies in the current state of technology and application for facility life-cycle optimization are as follows. • Interoperability – The current state of facility management software applications is characterized by limited usability because the applications are not interoperable. Most of the current generation of these tools are process/system-specific and proprietary, focused on niche functions. The handful of large-scale enterprise resource management applications, such as SAP, are built for generic business functionality and require massive investments of time and dollars to implement. These issues are exacerbated by the lack of incentives and industry technology “pull” for technology providers to develop products to open, plug-and-play standards. What is needed across the industry is a coordinated effort to support the creation of interoperable tools, including “bridges” for legacy applications. Current work being done at NIST needs to be expanded beyond process facilities and demonstrated beyond XML. The private sector must support interoperable standards It is also critical that require-

January 2003

7-42


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE ments for interoperability embrace all functions of the capital facility enterprise, down to the level of individual processes and units of equipment for different kinds of facilities. • Life-Cycle Data for Facility Assessment – Effective facility management requires gathering, analyzing, and using hundreds of data streams including reliability and maintainability data in addition to geospatial, economic, materials, vendor, and other business data. Although organizations vary in their ability (and need) to capture these kinds of data, there is a more far-reaching need to extend data acquisition and analysis capabilities to functions such as O&M scheduling, degradation analysis, vulnerability analysis, and capacity planning. However, the lack of standards for integrated data management prevents widespread use of existing data that could support modeling of factors impacting facility operations. Many unit processes today collect a wealth of data for performance measurement. However, the data invariably must be taken off line and used to create paper charts for interpretation and presentation, resulting in lag times of hours, days, or even weeks before needed actions are determined and authorized. Archiving of such data is haphazard, and feedback to designers and vendors for future improvements is limited. • Facility Assessment Tools – Current facility assessment is performed in functional or process stovepipes, and resulting data outputs are not integrated across multiple facility functions. Assessments are often done only when something goes wrong, rather than as standard operating procedure. Current assessment processes are labor-intensive, lacking in tools, widely variable, and highly dependent on the evaluator’s perspective. The lack of tools is a serious gap, forcing owner/operators to rely on manual processes and human judgment for information gathering and assessment. • Facility Performance Modeling – Virtual models are becoming increasingly useful tools in different aspects of the facility life cycle, but O&M poses unique requirements related to the need to acquire and analyze current, accurate, and complete data to support effective decisions. Owners and operators require new tools to analyze life-cycle performance with an accurate view of time-based data to support exploration of scenarios and options in areas such as contingency planning, facility modifications to meet changing business needs, and evaluation of the impacts of regulatory changes. Vulnerability assessment and failures modes analysis is now an urgent need in light of Homeland Security concerns. Modeling and simulation technologies are evolving to the point of being able to support these functions, but there is a critical gap in the ability to collect and integrate the real-world data need to provide meaningful levels of simulation fidelity. • Sensing – Tremendous strides are being made in the capabilities of sensor technology, offering the potential to have facilities “totally wired” for performance monitoring and intelligent control. A key to exploiting this technology is to create sensing methodologies that provide the broad base of measurements necessary for truly understanding the state of the facility (Figure 2-1) from the high-level view of the overall facility down to the level of individual systems, processes, equipment, and structures. In addition, a deeper understanding of the physics of a given facility – material properties, process dynamics, etc. – must be developed to enable accurate interpretation of sensor data by both monitoring systems and human overseers. Unit costs for sensors must also be drastically reduced so that sensing systems can be applied as broadly as needed. Improved and affordable sensing technology is also critical for improving facility security.

January 2003

7-43

Figure 2-1. Requirements for optimizing O&M functions center on developing technologies that enable capture and use of critical facility data.


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Chemical, biological, radiological/nuclear, and explosive sensing technologies are available, but current costs preclude use in all but the most vital installations. Emerging technologies related to intelligent buildings can and should be deployed more broadly; however, methodologies, standards, and parameters for facility sensing systems must also be developed, tested, and validated. Calibration is also an issue, since sensors must be tuned to for specific facility applications. Signal processing software that produces usable information from sensor feeds (including fusion of data from multiple sensors) is also not available; this is a significant barrier to designing and deploying sensing systems that are operationally effective. • Predictive Maintenance – Monitoring the performance and condition of unit process equipment is a well-developed discipline. Techniques such as vibration monitoring and sampling of lubricants for wear particles are routinely used in predicting and scheduling maintenance for machine tools, as one example. However, there are virtually no capabilities to holistically sense and analyze the health and condition of an entire process facility for indicators of degradation that enable decision making for needed maintenance, adjustments, or repairs. Plant reliability and optimized performance depends on maintenance for cause, but timed such that the maintenance event can be scheduled to minimize downtime. Progressive plant condition monitoring methods are tailored to the duty cycle and operating characteristics of the facility. An engineering understanding of failure modes, the trends leading to them, and expected life of components and systems are a foundation for predictive methods. In addition, an understanding of which items are performance-critical can help to define a prioritized approach to facility condition monitoring. Much plant performance and condition monitoring today is based on installed instrumentation that is primarily read manually, although some functions are linked to monitoring and recording systems. Newer condition monitoring technologies are more capable of computer based data analysis and interpretation, but limitations on the surety of sensed data prevent true automation of performance optimization. 3.0 THE GOAL This project will deliver cost-effective tools, adaptable to specific operations, to determine optimum operating conditions, maintain operations within that performance envelope, support real-time condition assessment, predict problems before they arise, and provide uninterrupted performance of the asset over its life cycle. The enabling technologies directly support the FIATECH vision of future facilities equipped with intelligent equipment and systems that continuously monitor their own condition and performance against defined parameters. These systems will autonomously invoke needed actions, using built-in mechanisms to perform required maintenance and repairs (including recalibration and consumables replenishment) or automatically communicating requirements and instructions to external operations support systems. A comprehensive and robust network of sensors and processors will provide continuous visibility of operational status and performance, flagging problems and significant trends for system or human attention. O&M activities and decisions will be based on a fully integrated consideration of all life-cycle, environmental, cost, and performance factors based on accurate, current, and complete data. Self-maintaining, self-repairing facilities, systems, and equipment will enable safe, secure, continuously optimized operations with near-zero downtime and with no undue effects to health, safety, or the environment. These systems will feed information into the enterprise knowledge base to enable better decisions in every phase of the life-cycle, from project planning and design to construction to operation and maintenance and to eventual decommissioning and deconstruction.

January 2003

7-44


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Capital facilities will be managed using accurate simulation models of processes, physical structures, and functional operations continuously updated with current data. These models will enable a full understanding of technical and business issues associated with every aspect of life-cycle performance. The master facility simulation model, created in the project planning phase, enriched in the design phase, and verified to-the-as-built configuration produced in the construction phase, will serve as the controller for operation and maintenance of the facility, continuously reporting operational status and identifying deviations and trends for automated and human-directed corrective action. The proposed Facility Life-Cycle Optimization project centers on several key topics. Future facility assessment requires accurate 3D/4D models and performance models as well as mature methodologies for life-cycle performance assessment. These assessments will be enabled by the development and application of advanced sensing devices that reduce the amount of unknowns to enable informed decisions that support optimized operation and maintenance. The inputs and outputs of the facility assessment will further support all aspects of life-cycle modeling including definitions for planning, design, and build activities.

The Smart Bridge Using Fiber Optic Sensors for Monitoring Precast Beams

West of Albuquerque, NM, this “smart bridge” has built-in fiber-optic sensors to monitor stress in the bridge's girders. The sensors monitor shrinkage, creep and other processes that traditionally cause weakening in high-performance concrete structures. The sensors transmit critical data in real time to engineers at New Mexico State University for analysis and monitoring. Use of this data will be a key to avoiding major maintenance and safety costs by capturing information on the effects of stress long before the bridge visibly shows fatigue.

From the Emerging Construction Technologies website, Comprehensive characterization and visualization tools www.new-technologies.org for use in modeling time-based scenarios will be created. These tools will be based on broadly accepted standards and open architecture specifications. Industry standards will also be developed to support the broader collaborative e-business activities of the facility enterprise. The current focus on data import and export formats will be expanded to encompass standards for higher-level interactions beyond XML.

A key enabler to achieving the optimized facility will be met through the development of sensing capabilities that far surpass today’s state of the art. In the future, smart sensing systems technologies will be effectively integrated into existing as well as new capital facilities, providing essential data for simulation of facility performance and technical and business risk analysis. In addition, sensing systems will be capable of measuring physical parameters, process performance, state variables, human factors, environmental conditions, material states, variances, deterioration, and other variables. Advanced sensing systems will also provide the capability for real-time detection of safety and security threats such as process upsets security threats such as sabotage and bioterrorism. 4.0 SOLUTION APPROACH Achieving the vision of totally sensed, monitored, and intelligently operated, controlled, and maintained facilities continuously optimized for both current and life-cycle performance requires the development and validation of a broad spectrum of technologies that can be tailored for application to meet the specific needs of different industries and different types of facilities. The project will therefore develop and demonstrate a “toolbox” of technologies and capabilities enabling: • Operational performance monitoring and condition assessment of different types and classes of capital facility

January 2003

7-45


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Modeling of the performance and condition of a capital facility across its entire life cycle, including 4-D simulation enabling accurate forecasting of O&M requirements and evaluation of the impact of planned or potential actions/events • Low-cost, reliable sensing to enable comprehensive facility monitoring and command/control. These developments will use as a framework the master facility life-cycle model concept described in the Project 1 plan described earlier in this section and highlighted throughout the roadmap. The sensing strategy, as an example, calls for provision of sensed data to continuously update the master facility model, which will be the interface for the facility monitoring, analysis, and decision support applications. Task 1: Facility Assessment System. The objective of this task is to develop a “toolbox” of technologies, products, and systems to support operational performance and condition assessment of different types and classes of capital facility. This effort will include baselining and evaluation of existing tools and technologies, identification of currently unsupported needs, development of application concepts and specifications for individual and integrated systems, technology demonstrations, and documentation of resulting benefits and additional technology needs. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 1.1 Technology Survey: Survey and document, in the form of a capabilities matrix, existing products and technologies with applicability to facility assessment needs for various classes of capital facilities and different kinds of facility operations. 1.2 Facility Assessment Methodologies: Develop standard methodologies and related performance measures for different types of capital facilities and facility processes. Document information acquisition and processing requirements for each facility scenario and perform a gap analysis against the capabilities matrix developed in Task 1.1, to define requirements for evolution of existing tools and development of new tools. Disseminate the results to the technology developer community to influence R&D planning and direction. 1.3 Industry Pilots: Conduct a series of pilot implementations at a selected set of industry facilities representing a wide range of facility types. Document the results and perform cost/benefit analyses to guide further definition of technology requirements and assessment methodologies. 1.4 Facility Assessment Training: Develop a standard toolkit of training in facility assessment methods and technologies to support widespread, cost-effective implementation across industry. This will include both generic and facility type-specific training. 1.5 Facility Assessment Standards: Develop a baseline of standards for facility assessment processes and technologies, leveraging and influencing ISO, U.S., and other applicable standards to provide comprehensive coverage of all facility assessment needs. Task 2 : Life-Cycle Facility Performance Modeling Capability. The objective of this task is to develop and demonstrate a comprehensive capability to model the performance and condition of a capital facility across its entire life cycle, from inception of operations to eventual decommissioning. . Many facilities use similar classes of equipment that can be analyzed for common parameters and methods for monitoring, trending, and corrections that can be integrated into the overall plant condition monitoring strategies. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows 2.1 Data Requirements Definition: For a selected facility type or types, develop a comprehensive definition of the types of data required to support modeling of operational performance, the formats required to make the data useful in modeling, and interface requirements for acquiring the data from its source(s) and providing it to the modeling function. 2.2 Performance Metrics Definition: For the data sets developing in Task 2.1, develop and validate facility/operations performance metrics (including boundary conditions) that enable the acquired data to be evaluated against historical data and enterprise needs. Models that analyze the rate of per-

January 2003

7-46


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE formance or condition degradation to calculate the optimum timing of corrective action to minimize overall cost will be developed. 2.3 Predictive Model Suite: Develop a suite of predictive models of degradation mechanisms, failure modes, reliability, and vulnerability for a wide range of facility assets, including structures, process systems/equipment, and materials, focusing on assets widely used across the industry. 2.4 Condition-Based Maintenance Strategies and Methods: Develop concepts for integration of facility systems and cells of equipment to work within the context of an intelligent condition-based maintenance program. Develop supporting detection methods, analytical models, and timing for condition surveillance for specific classes of capital facility systems and equipment 2.5 Demonstration and Validation: Make the model suite developed in Task 2.3 widely available to industry and support demonstration and evaluation to verify model accuracy and utility. Collect feedback to support model evolution and extension to a comprehensive range of facility types. Task 3: 3D/4D Simulation Technologies: The objective of this task is to advance modeling capabilities for capital facility simulations to include a high-fidelity time element, enabling accurate forecasting of future O&M requirements and evaluation of the impact of planned or potential actions/events. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 3.1 4D Data Structures: Evaluate and identify data requirements and supporting data structures to enable incorporation of time-based data accurately into facility simulations. 3.2 4D Demonstrations: Conduct or sponsor demonstrations of 4D facility simulation capability to validate the value of the technology in facility O&M planning. Include demonstrations of catastrophic event scenarios to highlight the value of the technology in support of facility security and emergency response planning as well as business contingency evaluation. 3.3 Business Case for Implementation: based on the results of Task 3.2, develop a business case assessment to support and promote the integration of 4D simulation technologies in capital facility enterprises. Task 4: Sensing Technologies. The objective of this task is to develop and integrate low-cost, reliable sensing technologies and supporting information processing technologies to enable comprehensive monitoring and command/control of capital facilities. Sensors will be developed that are capable of selftesting and self-certification for reliability and assurance of data integrity. Specific tasks to be performed are as follows. 4.1 Sensor Technology Awareness: Conduct open industry workshops on state-of-the-art developments in sensing technologies with the national laboratories and other developers, to provide both wide industry awareness of current and emerging capabilities (and costs) and to challenge the developer community to develop sensors to meet aggressive affordability targets, industry needs, and priorities. 4.2 Technology Benchmarking: Conduct demonstrations and evaluations of current industry measurement capabilities to assess applicability, economics, and gaps in support of fully instrumented facilities. 4.3 Sensor Standards: Develop a unified set of sensing and measurement systems standards for different types and classes of capital facilities. 4.4 Emerging Technology Demonstrations: Conduct demonstrations of specific new measurement technologies in existing facilities to evaluate performance, affordability, and cost-effectiveness. 4.5 Calibration Capabilities: Develop the capability for sensors to be self calibrating and self certifying, with low-cost calibration capabilities enabling different types of sensors to be quickly and easily “tuned� for use across a wide range of facility sensing requirements. January 2003

7-47


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 4.6 Sensed Data Translation Tools: Develop algorithms and models for acquiring, analyzing, and developing actionable output from sensed data in facility systems to control processes and systems for optimum reliability-centered facility performance. Develop prognostic models to project and forecast health and condition of the facility systems based on historical and future usage profiles for use in decision advisory systems and other O&M management functions. 4.7 Decision Advisors: Develop decision advisors tailored to respond to prognostics, trends, changes, or forecasted failures for facility systems for guidance to the appropriate functional organizations in the facility. Develop intelligent responses to varying performance or condition states to enable actions such as modification of system operational profiles to achieve production completion or the scheduling of a repair event. 4.8 Threat Detection Capabilities: Conduct specific demonstrations of sensing technologies for detection of terrorist threats including radiological/nuclear, explosives, chemicals, and bioweapons. Task 5: Integration with Master Facility Life-Cycle Model. This level-of-effort task will support integration of the life-cycle O&M tools with the master facility model developed under Project 1 to assure compatibility of information and application interfaces. Specific tasking will be defined as the respective project plans are finalized. 5.0 PROJECT PLAN The summary-level project plan for the Facility Life-Cycle Optimization project is shown in Figure 5-1.

January 2003

7-48


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Figure 5-1. Facility Life-Cycle Optimization Project Plan

6.0 BENEFITS AND BUSINESS CASE O&M over the useful life of many facilities typically consumes a far greater portion of the total cost of facility ownership than the initial facility acquisition (planning, design and construction). For some facilities, O&M outlays are orders of magnitude greater than the acquisition cost. While current planning and design strategies focus on optimizing initial affordability, lack of attention to and emphasis on the entire facility life cycle can impose huge downstream penalties, particularly with regards to long-term operational efficiency, ability to respond to changes in the business environment, and eventual facility decommissioning and deconstruction demolition. The ability to make O&M decisions on a rational basis through an integrated knowledge of physical properties, reliability and deterioration statistics, and associated life cycle repair costs can enable owner/operators to optimize facility service life, reduce the risk of business disruption and failure, and significantly reduce cost of ownership. This added understanding and systematic recording of the ‘performance in service’ will allow for new designs to be created with a better understanding of the life-cycle cost and performance implications. The proposed Facility Life-Cycle Optimization Project will define requirements and develop and demonstrate a broad slate of technologies to realize the visions of real-time facility control and performance op-

January 2003

7-49


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE timization, and powerful modeling and simulation to support O&M decision processes for both planning, contingency assessment, and response to problems. Specific benefits include delivery of capabilities to: 1) Fully integrate sensing technologies to continuously and accurately monitor the health of existing and new facilities and their processes, reducing and preventing failures and performance degradation with the most judicious use of O&M resources. 2) Immediately identify and respond to problems (incidents, accidents, changes in requirements, etc.), both limiting and mitigating adverse effects. 3) Enhanced processes and tools for extrapolating reliable current state data to provide scenarios for evaluating the expected future state of the facility. 4) Accurately model the effects of options and issues in support of life-cycle actions such as facility upgrades, refurbishment, reengineering, or conversion to alternative use. 5) Capture O&M performance data to support improved design of new and modified facilities that are more cost-efficient to operate and more effective in fulfilling their purpose.

January 2003

7-50


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX A “WHAT IF?” John Voeller is a respected visionary and frequent speaker on technology and the future of the construction industry.31 In a presentation at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Northwest Construction Consumer Council, he outlined his own vision of the future for the industry: “What if…is always a fascinating question. It is particularly so when the current circumstances of the subject area are seen as having dysfunctional aspects or compromises that prevent it from being much better. In this brief article, we visit a few of the areas that might be done differently if we had a chance to start over in building a construction industry. Some of these are done in existing firms while others have been discussed by consortia such as CII. However, I believe several have not been widely considered and it is doubtful that all have been viewed together. Life Cycle View – Owners and constructors develop a total life cycle value proposition for each project based on industry templates and then examine where each contributor brings added value regards of when they are participating actively in the effort. Production – Construction based on manufacturing principles and automation perspective with value pricing, not man-hour concentration. Manufacturing has redesigned itself in the past decade and much can be learned from what they have done, even at the small contractor scale. A person heavily involved in that effort is now running FIATECH and could be valuable in moving this forward. New Labor Practices – An end to approaches that foster a focus on man-hours with all its tendencies to elongate schedule and perpetuate inefficiency. This is tightly coupled to the first two efforts. Virtual Halls – Every construction worker in the country should have a web page on a national resource site with them having control over which groups have access to their personal information. Experience, skills, certifications, preferences and references would all be available. Processes – Fully documented with a national best practice repository that can be used by owners to build the requirement basis for their needs. A national repository of tools and templates would be a powerful motivator and the added opportunity for training in this discipline via the web would enhance the opportunity. WBS and Cost Codes – Build a national template for five major facility sectors using a national WBS and cost code view and get companies to agree that these will be used with a minimum of specialized additions which will be clearly identified. Those with a stake in this include insurance, bonding, banking and owner groups. Standards – Many current construction and material standards are based on inertia in the industry, not on an aggressive examination of what is possible and what could be better. Too much emphasis of standards bodies is on sustaining the revenue of selling and controlling this information and not on making the industry better. A national initiative to look at the alternatives to major standards should be launched with complete objectivity about alternatives. Construction Tools – The use of physical tracking systems to eliminate loss would encourage constructors to equip their people with the very best and encourage innovation in new specialty

31

John Voeller is Vice President & Chief Knowledge Officer, Black & Veatch.

January 2003

A-1


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE tools. A national specialty tools tracking database would be especially useful in responding to major emergencies. Software Tools – Off-the-shelf tools cannot be a source of competitive advantage as others can obtain – so settle on small subset to make sure vendors stay healthy and information is retrievable throughout facility life cycle. This was done in the Japanese chemical industry and the results were stark. Handling Tools – We currently handle many large and heavy things in construction in ways that have proven workable, but we have seen little effort to truly improve this area. Much of this comes from adherence to standards built without regard to consequences in handling and assembly. For example, still having an ironworker in a sling trying to wrestle a bolted connection with a bull wrench is archaic. Using a robotic combined lifting clamp with a walking alignment punch and Huck fastener installer would seem possible but lack of such tools is result of no R&D by stakeholders. Litigation – Develop a national view to construction claims handling. This would include highly standard ways of developing and reporting claims so that a production view to handling could be developed to catch them earlier, handle them better and learn from them more easily. Schedule and Estimates – Owners lose millions on delays in time to revenue because of deficiencies in these areas. A key aspect of these is that doing them well requires a strong historical database of past efforts from which to build the next effort. Rather than giving this away, we should imagine how we could post project profiles and associated schedules and estimates with all associated assumptions in a national repository to which others could subscribe. It would be anonymous, but could improve the quality of all efforts large and small over time. Coordination – A national view to balancing the scare resources of construction personnel would seem appropriate and getting and keeping such people becomes harder. Safety – We tend to look at safety as a reaction to the many assumptions we make about how construction currently must work. What have we done to stand back and question every accepted practice in the context of safety with all options open to change? Learning – National lessons learned repository with immunity from discoverability. We as an industry can learn a great deal from each other, but this is badly inhibited by the misuse of lessons learned by others against those trying to communicate and improve. Alerts – A national alerts posting system should be developed so that any concerns about equipment, methods, materials or participants could be posted in a controlled manner for all industry to use to improve their efforts and avoid unnecessary losses of many kinds. These are all very brief discussions about very complex topics and they only scratch the surface. However, there appears to be enough substance in just these few to warrant further discussion and examination. I am ready to work with others starting today to move any of these forward.”

January 2003

A-2


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX B ASCE REPORT CARD AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS U.S. CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in March released its 2001 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, in which the nation received a cumulative grade of "D+" as discussed in Section 2.1 of this document. The ASCE report provides a more in-depth assessment of each of the 12 infrastructure areas on its Web site at http://www.asce.org/reportcard/. In this appendix we provide ASCE’s summary-level assessment of each area and include specific policy recommendations set forth by the association (Figure B-1). Over-arching recommendations include: • Removal of the Infrastructure Trust Funds (Highway, Aviation, Harbor Maintenance Trust and Inland Waterway) from the unified federal budget. • Increased funding for long-term fundamental highway research efforts at the national level. • Establish a federal, multi-year capital budget for public works infrastructure construction and rehabilitation similar to those used by state and local governments. • Encourage the use of life-cycle cost analysis principles to evaluate the total costs of projects. • Procure engineering design services on the basis of qualifications.

January 2003

A-3


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

FIGURE B-1. ASCE REPORT CARD AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2001 2001 Grade

1998 Grade

Roads

D+

D-

Bridges

C

C-

Transit

C-

C

Aviation

D

C-

Schools

D-

F

Category

Comments

Policy Recommendations

One-third of the nation's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, costing American drivers an estimated $5.8 billion a year. Road conditions contribute to as many as 13,800 highway fatalities annually. Twenty-seven percent of America's urban freeways - which account for 61% of all miles driven - are congested. As of 1998, 29% of the nation's bridges were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, an improvement from 31% in 1996. It is estimated that it will cost $10.6 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies. Transit ridership has increased 15% since 1995 - faster than airline or highway transportation. Capital spending must increase 41% just to maintain the system in its present condition. Airport capacity has increased only 1% in the past 10 years, while air traffic has increased 37%. Airport congestion delayed nearly 50,000 flights in 1 month alone last year. It also jeopardizes safety - there were 429 runway incursions ("near misses") reported in 2000, up 25% from 1999.

Due to aging or outdated facilities or severe overcrowding, 75% of our nation's school buildings are inadequate to meet the needs of school children. Since 1998, the total need has increased from $112 billion to $127 billion.

• Full funding for Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) at approved levels and inclusion of revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) funds using the already determined funding formula for states. • Reauthorize TEA-21 in 2002. • Support for environmental streamlining of highway projects.

• Fully support the intermodal (including transit) vision of TEA-21. • Fully fund TEA-21 at the authorized level. • Full funding for the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) at the authorized level of $40 billion. • Permit increases in Passenger Facilities Charges (PFC) above the current $4.50. • Streamline the environmental permitting process by running federal and state environmental impact assessments simultaneously to speed new runway construction. • Modernize the Air Traffic Control System. • Expand federal tax credits to support increased use of school construction bonds. • Continue and increase Federal grants for high-poverty, high-need school districts. • Consider direct Federal funding for school construction. • Encourage school districts to explore alternative financing, including lease financing, and financing/ownership/use arrangements to facilitate construction. • Encourage school districts to adopt regular, comprehensive construction and maintenance programs. • Increase emphasis on research and development for design and construction to meet the rapidly changing teaching environment. • Establish a federal, multi-year capital budget for public works infrastructure construction and rehabilitation, similar to those used by state and local governments. • Encourage the use of life-cycle cost analysis principles to evaluate the total costs of projects.

January 2003

A-4


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 2001 Grade

1998 Grade

Comments

Policy Recommendations

Drinking Water

D

D

Wastewater

D

D+

The nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of $11 billion to replace facilities that are nearing the end of their useful life and to comply with federal water regulations. Non-point source pollution remains the most significant threat to water quality. The nation's 16,000 wastewater systems face enormous needs. Some sewer systems are 100 years old. Currently, there is a $12 billion annual shortfall in funding for this category, but federal funding has remained flat for a decade. Over one-third of U.S. surface waters do not meet water quality standards.

Dams

D

C-

There are more than 2,100 unsafe dams in the U.S. There were 61 reported dam failures in the past 2 years. The number of "high-hazard potential dams" - those whose failure would cause loss of life - increased from 9,281 in 1998 to 9,921 in 2001.

Solid Waste

C+

C-

The amount of solid waste sent to landfills has declined 13% since 1990, while the amount of waste recovered through recycling has nearly doubled. Most states have 10 years' worth of landfill capacity and waste-to-energy plants now manage 17% of the nation's trash.

Hazardous Waste

D+

D-

Regulation and enforcement have largely halted the contamination of new sites. Aided by the best cleanup technology in the world, the rate of Superfund cleanup has quickened - though not enough to keep pace with the number of new sites listed as the backlog of potential sites is assessed.

• Funding of $5 billion annually over five years under the current State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program in the Safe • Drinking Water Act. Congressional appropriations of $6 billion annually over five years for immediate wastewater infrastructure repairs and system upgrades under the Clean Water Act. • Create a water trust fund to finance the national shortfall in funding for water and wastewater infrastructure. These trust funds should not be diverted for non-water purposes. • Federal appropriations from general treasury funds and issuance of revenue bonds and tax exempt financing at the state and local levels, as well as public-private partnerships, state infrastructure banks and other innovative financing mechanisms. • Establish a comprehensive and fully funded dam safety program in all 50 states, especially Alabama and Delaware, the only states without authorized dam-safety programs. • Create federal and state revolving loan funds to assist public and private dam owners in rehabilitating their dams. • Full funding and expansion of the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act. • Development of a comprehensive, Internet-based information resources system to support the maintenance and improvement of dam safety in the U.S. • Reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program Act. • Emphasis should be given to integrated management of municipal solid waste. Continued development of improved landfill design and operating technology is paramount. • Increase federal funding of research into waste-to-energy programs. • The problem of over consumption should be addressed, with the goal of reducing the production and consumption of unnecessary goods, packaging and throwaways. Toxic materials used in products and packaging and produced as byproducts in production processes should be minimized. • Enact a “brownfields” cleanup bill in the 107th Congress. • Reauthorize CERCLA. Any reauthorization should include amendments that will: – Eliminate overlapping federal and state responsibilities – Relieve private parties from liability for actions that may have been legal at the time of occurrence – Promote the use of innovative technology and presumptive remedies – Provide consistent clean up criteria that take into account future uses of sites – Provide relief for engineers and contractors from unfair liability faced when working in good faith to restore Superfund sites; and, allow engineers to exercise their professional judgment

Category

January 2003

A-5


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Category

2001 Grade

1998 Grade

Comments

Policy Recommendations

Navigable Waterways

D+

NA*

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a backlog of $38 billion in authorized projects. On the inland waterways system, 44% of all the lock chambers have already exceeded their 50-year design lives. Key deep-draft channels are inadequate for the mega-container ships, which are the world standard for international trade. Transportation demand on waterways is expected to double by 2020, and serious performance problems are likely.

Energy

D+

NA*

Since 1990, actual capacity has increased only about 7,000 MW per year, an annual shortfall of 30%. More than 10,000 MW of capacity must be added each year until 2008 to keep up with the 1.8% annual demand growth. The U.S. energy transmission infrastructure relies on older technology, raising questions of long-term reliability.

• A program of improvement and maintenance of ports, harbors and waterways is essential to the economic and environmental well being of the nation. • Remove the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland Waterway Infrastructure Trust Fund from the unified federal budget. • Increased funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to relieve the $38 billion project backlog. • Fund programs to mitigate the effects of natural disasters such as floods. • Support for both structural and non-structural floodplain management options, and encouraging the government to consider the value of each component in devising and funding flood mitigation programs. • Support increased funding for FEMA's National Floodplain Mapping program. • Implementation of a rational energy policy for the United States. • Increased federal funding for transmission reliability research. • Development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain (ANWAR) in an environmentally responsible manner. • Continued industry and federal funding for research and development of the Advanced Hydro Turbine.

*Not covered in prior year

January 2003

A-6


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX C FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING, FY1999 DESCRIPTION BY CATEGORY32 Building Design Improvements In FY99, roughly $5 million was invested in efforts to improve building design. This included R&D on energy efficient design, sustainable and green design, affordable housing, and improved building rehabilitation/renovation. It also contained software development efforts aimed at helping architects and others design better buildings. Building Process Improvements & Automation Roughly $4 million was invested in improving and automating the building process. This category included R&D related to innovative construction approaches, partial and complete automation of construction and materials handling, simulation of construction operations, new collaborative work methods, new project management and delivery systems, as well as how to use information technologies on the job site and to improve regulatory enforcement. Building Product Improvement Approximately $23 million was invested in building product improvement. Roughly half of this was focused on window-related research with the rest distributed among adhesives, alternatives to stick framing, improved foundations, insulation, paint, and roofing. Concrete, Cement, Pavement, and Asphalt More than $15 million was invested in areas related to concrete, cement, pavement, and asphalt. Most of the R&D focused on transportation related applications with other efforts addressing general analysis techniques, cement/wood composites, concrete composites, corrosion, fiber-reinforced polymer concrete, and non-destructive evaluation. Energy Efficiency Almost $58 million was invested in R&D on energy efficiency. Of this total, slightly more than half was focused on general analytical, technical, and program support. These general work areas included building energy systems, building codes and standards, existing buildings, heat and moisture modeling, and weatherization. In addition, roughly one-third was focused on HVAC, appliances, and motors. Finally, approximately 10 percent was invested in lighting. Just over $135 million was invested in energy supply. More than $100 million of this was invested in renewable energy sources, including $90 million for photovoltaics, roughly $8 million for general solar and solar thermal technologies, and more than $8 million for geothermal technologies. On the nonrenewable side, roughly $28 million was invested in fossil fueled generation sources (primarily fuel cells at $8 million), energy storage technologies ($3 million), superconductivity ($11 million), and transmission and distribution technologies ($4 million).

32

Hassell, Scott, Scott Florence and Emile Ettedgui, Summary of Federal Construction, Building, and Housing Related Research & Development in FY1999, Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2001.

January 2003

A-7


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Forestry More than $21 million was invested in areas related to forestry. Nearly $16 million of this was for general forestry research. More than $4 million was focused on pest and fungi. Trade, economics, and policy round out the R&D portfolio. Geotechnical Engineering & Soil/Groundwater Remediation Nearly $31 million was invested in this category, however, geotechnical engineering represents only $2 million of the total. Almost $29 million was invested in soil & groundwater remediation with almost all of this being a single DOD groundwater remediation field laboratory. Land-use Design Improvements Less than $4 million was invested in R&D on improving land-use planning, policy, and design. These investments included comprehensive land use planning, sustainable development, transportation, brownfield redevelopment, deconstruction/demolition for re-development of urban areas, and urban heat islands. It also included R&D on the application of remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) to land-use planning for urban growth, natural resource management, and farmland preservation. Several aspects of this research focused on understanding changes along the edges of urban growth areas. Metals, Composites, & Advanced Materials (Non-wood, Non-concrete) More than $12 million was invested in metals, composites, and other advanced materials. (This category does not include composite or advanced materials containing wood or concrete; those materials are listed in their respective categories.) This category contains more than $5 million for metals, alloys, and welding; $3 million for ceramics; and over $2 million for composites. The category is rounded out with R&D on general analysis, testing, instrumentation, and polymers. Other This category represents R&D that could not easily be put into other categories. This was typically because the activities included multiple R&D areas and/or the dissemination of test results to interested parties, including web outreach and other services. This category represented just over $4 million. Pollution & Waste Reduction More than $15 million was invested in reducing pollution and waste. Approximately $10 million addressed multiple media (e.g., air, water, solid waste) with the Navy’s work on environmental compliance equipment being the bulk of this R&D. The next largest R&D area was improved wood processing, followed by R&D on refrigerants, paint, water, and sludge. Reduction in Construction Work Illness & Injuries Almost $16 million was invested in reducing construction-related illness and injuries. This R&D was primarily conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) within the Department of Health and Human Services. Safety studies included surveillance on construction fatalities, intervention studies on fall protection, safer excavation technologies, back injury studies, electrical safety, and mobile equipment related injuries. Construction health projects addressed issues such as asphalt fumes, hearing loss prevention for construction trades, ergonomic interventions, control of silica exposures, tool-related vibration, and lead exposures. Reduction in Occupant-related Illness & Injury Nearly $5 million was invested in R&D related to the health and safety of building occupants, with the primary focus being on indoor air quality (IAQ). More than $3 million was invested in general IAQ issues. Smaller sums were invested in specific sectors or technology needs including air quality in residential housing, air quality in the agricultural and livestock industries, air quality sensor development, asbestos, and low solvent adhesives. January 2003

A-8


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Structural Engineering & Natural Hazards $27 million was invested in structural engineering and natural hazard R&D. Earthquake-related R&D represented more than $8 million of this category, multiple-hazard R&D was another $6.5 million, and fire research was $6 million. Smaller sums were invested in R&D on general structural analysis, dynamic and passive structural control systems, measurement and instrumentation, wind and flood hazards, as well as dams, hydraulic, and marine structures. Transportation Infrastructure More than $130 million was invested in R&D on transportation infrastructure. Nearly all of this was from the Department of Transportation. While a lack of project descriptions made it impossible to further characterize nearly $80 million of this R&D, approximately $46 million was focused on highways and system efficiency. The remaining $4 million was split between bridges, intermodal transportation, and transit and rail R&D. Unknown Almost $19 million in potentially relevant R&D could not be categorized due to a lack of project descriptions. However, these projects were included due to the general relevance of the sponsoring agency or based on the terms used in the highly abbreviated project descriptions (e.g., “Construction (Advanced)�). The records included in this category are all DOD records, with roughly $15.5 million from the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The balance of the category comes from the Navy, Air Force, and Army. Wood Products & Quality Approximately $20 million was invested in R&D on wood products and wood quality. Less than 50 percent of this was invested in finding new applications for wood and wood scrap/waste ($8 million). Roughly $3 million focused on milling techniques and technologies that reduced waste and improved resource utilization. Other areas receiving between $1 and $2 million each included wood preservatives, wood-containing composites, wood drying, structural properties of wood & wood structures, and adhesives.

DESCRIPTION BY AGENCY Department of Agriculture Nearly $41 million was invested by the Dept. of Agriculture with roughly $20 million for forestry, $17 million for wood products and quality, and $2 million for pollution and waste reduction. The remaining $2 million was spent across numerous categories. Department of Commerce Roughly $36 million was invested by the DOC in FY99. Approximately $13 million was focused on structural engineering and natural hazards; almost $6 million on energy supply (primarily fuel cells and photovoltaics); nearly $5 million for metals, composites, and advanced materials; almost $4 million each for energy efficiency and building design improvement, and almost $2 million for building process improvements and automation. Department of Defense The DOD invested about $60 million in R&D in FY99. Almost half of this was devoted to soil and groundwater remediation ($28 million). Of the remaining, roughly $20 million could not be categorized due to a lack of project descriptions. The balance was spread across numerous other R&D categories.

January 2003

A-9


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Department of Energy Out of a total of $210 million, roughly $128 million was devoted to energy supply, $53 million to energy efficiency, and $15 million for building product improvements. The remainder was spread across the other categories. Department of Health & Human Services Of the Department’s $17 million investment, more than $15 million went to reducing construction-related illnesses and injuries with the remainder focused on reducing occupant-related illness and injury. Department of Housing & Urban Development HUD’s R&D investment was approximately $12 million, with nearly $10 million of this being specifically for the PATH program. Of the total, $4 million focused on building product improvements, $3 million on multiple-category R&D (classified as “Other”), $1.4 million on building process improvements and automation, and $1 million for building design improvements. The remaining funds are spread across the remaining categories. Department of Transportation In FY99, $140 million was invested by DOT. Most all of this was invested in transportation infrastructure R&D ($128 million) with the balance being for research specifically focused on the material aspects of concrete, cement, pavement, and asphalt. Environmental Protection Agency The largest component in EPA’s $1.6 million investment was focused on reducing occupant-related illness and injury ($600,000). The balance was focused equally on the land management aspects of forestry, brownfield redevelopment, urban air pollution, and pollution and waste reduction. National Science Foundation NSF’s $26 million was highly distributed among the categories with structural engineering and natural hazards getting the most ($13 million), followed by metals, composites, and advanced materials ($3.5 million); transportation infrastructure ($2.6 million); and geotechnical engineering (almost $2 million). The balance of NSF’s investment was spread across the full range of categories. In addition, roughly $200,000 of R&D was performed by the Departments of Interior and Veterans Affairs as well as the National Aeronautics & Space Administration.

January 2003

A-10


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX D THE PISTEP PROCESS PLANT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY MODEL Preparation for the Capital Projects Technology Roadmapping workshops included review of a number of industry models for capital project processes. One model we found particularly useful was developed by the Process Industries STEP (PISTEP) Consortium. The PISTEP activity model and its associated documentation were produced as an aid to those involved in production of Application Protocols for the Process Industries in the STEP (ISO 10303) standard. Figure D-1 on the following page, from the PISTEP document, provides a simplified view of the Process Plant Life Cycle activities and indicates areas of interest and data flows that may be modeled in a more formal manner. The model excludes: 1. Design and Manufacture of standard parts – pumps, valves, etc. 2. Development, Marketing, and Transportation (other than pipelines) of manufactured product 3. General Management activities 4. Management of human resources and supply of computing services 5. Minor data flows, e.g. feedback loops The model includes: 1. Engineering management activities 2. Authorizations and Permissions, both internal and external (e.g. License to Operate).

January 2003

A-11


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Notice: The copyright of the above illustration is assigned to the Process Industries STEP Consortium and its successors. However, the contents may be freely distributed or copied, in full or part, provided due acknowledgement is made.

Figure D-1. The PISTEP model is one of the widely accepted industry models used to develop a framework for the CPTR workshops.

January 2003

A-12


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX E ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS A&E AI ASCE ASP

architectural & engineering artificial intelligence American Society of Civil Engineers application service provider

B2B BOM BPS

business-to-business bill of material Bechtel Procurement System

CAD CAE CERCLA CERF CIAMS CII COMET CONSIAT CPC CPTR

computer-aided design computer-aided engineering Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Civil Engineering Research Foundation Construction Information and Management System Construction Industry Institute Conceptual Modeling and Estimating Tool Construction Integration and Automation Technology Caspian Pipeline Consortium Capital Projects Technology Roadmapping

D&D DB DOE DOT

decommissioning and demolition database U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Transportation

EC EPA EPC EPCOM EPCOMD ER ERP ERM

electronic commerce U.S. Environmental Protection Agency engineer-procure-construct engineer-procure-construct-operate-maintain engineer-procure-construct-operate-maintain-decommission environmental remediation enterprise resource planning enterprise resource management

FEL FIAPP FIATECH FMECA

front-end loading Fully Integrated and Automated Project Processes Fully Integrated and Automated Technology failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis

GIS GPS

geographic information system Global Positioning System

January 2003

A-13


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE HR HSE HVAC

Human Resources health/safety/environmental heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

IAI IFC IMTI IT

International Alliance for Interoperability Industry Foundation Class Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative, Inc. information technology

KM KPI

knowledge management key performance indicator

LADAR LCC LCDM

laser distance and ranging life-cycle cost Life Cycle Data Management

M&O M&S MROR MSDS MTBF

management and operating modeling and simulation maintain/repair/operate/retrofit Material Safety Data Sheet mean time between failure

NASA NIST NPDES NSTC

National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Science and Technology Council

O&M ONR OOF OSHA

operation and maintenance Office of Naval Research Owner-Operator Forum U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAIR PCBs PDRI PDRI-I PID PIEBASE

Partnership for the Advancement of Infrastructure and Its Renewal polychlorinated biphenyls Project Definition Rating Index Project Definition Rating Index for Industrial Projects piping and instrumentation drawing Process Industries Executives for Achieving Business Advantage Using Standards for Data Exchange U.K. Process Industries STEP consortium Plant Information Interchange STEP (U.S. consortium-developed information exchange standard for 3D plant information)

PISTEP PLANTSTEP

QA QC

Quality Assurance Quality Control

R&D RCM RCRA RF

research and development reliability-centered maintenance Resource Conservation and Recovery Act radio frequency

January 2003

A-14


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE RFI RFQ ROI

request for information request for quotation return on investment

SARA SIPS SPEC STEP

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Structures Insulated Panel Systems Systems & Process Engineering Corp. Standard for the Exchange of Product Data

TCO TIC TQM

total cost of ownership total installed cost Total Quality Management

USAF USN VR VRML

U.S. Air Force U.S. Navy virtual reality virtual reality modeling language

WBS

work breakdown structure

XML

extensible markup language

January 2003

A-15


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX F SOURCE MATERIAL AND SUGGESTED READING 1. Bernstein, Harvey M. and Lemer, Andrew C., Solving the Innovation Puzzle, Challenges Facing the U.S. Design & Construction Industry, ASCE Press, Library of Congress #95-49030, 1996. 2. An Approach for Measuring Reduction in Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practices for the National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6473, NIST, September 2000. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/c&bpublications.htm. 3. An Approach for Measuring Reduction in Delivery Time: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practices for the National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6189, NIST, 1998. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/c&bpublications.htm 4. An Approach for Measuring Reduction in Operation, Maintenance, and Energy Costs: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practices for the National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6185, NIST, 1998. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/c&bpublications.htm 5. Chapman, Robert E., An Approach for Measuring Reductions in Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practices for the National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6473, NIST, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 2000. 6. Annual Progress Report for Streamlining the Nations Building Regulatory Process Project, NIST, October 1999. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/pubs/APR_98_99.pdf 7. Assessing Global Research Needs – Engineering and Construction for Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Civil Engineering Research Foundation, Report # 96-5016 & 96-5016.T, 1996. 8. Automatic Detection of Significant Variation from Designed Intent Utilizing Survey Data Claims: Construction Information and Management System, From Automatics & Robotics in Construction, 17th International Symposium Proceedings, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000. 9. Belle, Richard A., PAIR Initiative: Repairing and Revitalizing Our Nation's Physical Infrastructure, Federal Highway Administration. November/December 1999. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/novdec99/pair.htm. 10. Chapman, Robert E., Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems Integration and Automation Technologies in Industrial Facilities, NISTIR 6501, NIST, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 2000. 11. Bernstein, Harvey M., Civil Engineering Research Foundation Congressional Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, 4 February 1993. 12. Bernstein, Harvey M., Priorities for Federal Innovation Reform, Civil Engineering Research Foundation paper for the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, undated. http://www.cerf.org/PDFS/prior.pdf 13. CONSIAT: Construction Integration and Automation Technology, NIST, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 31 August 31 2000. 14. Bon, Ranko and Crosthwaite, David, The Future of International Construction, Thomas Telford Publishing, 2000. ISBN: 0 7277 2749 4.

January 2003

A-16


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 15. Stutzman, Paul E. and Jaime Raz, Building Stones of America: 50 Years of NIST Stone Test Wall, NIST, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 2000. 16. Capital Work Process Project Definition, Construction Industries Institute. 17. Construction and Building: Interagency Program for Technical Advancement in Construction and Building. Report of the Subcommittee on Construction and Building Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, 1999. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/pubs/NSTC_99_Report.pdf 18. Construction Technology Goals: An Industry Perspective. Civil Engineering Research Foundation, September 1997. http://www.cerf.org 19. Creating the 21st Century through Innovation, Civil Engineering Research Foundation. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ 20. Design in the New Millennium, Advanced Engineering Environments, Phase 2. National Academy Press, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council, 2000. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309071259/html/ 21. Dictionary of Architecture & Construction, 3rd Edition, Edited by Cyril M. Harris, McGraw Hill Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0 07 135178 7. 22. Global Experience - Local Results – 2000 Annual Report, Materials Technology Institute. http://www.mti-link.org/ 23. High-Performance Commercial Buildings: A Technology Roadmap. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, October 2000. http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/commercial_roadmap/ 24. International Sourcebook for Construction Industry Product Assessment, Civil Engineering Research Foundation Report #95-5021, LCC #96-21796, 1996. 25. Linking the Construction Industry, Electronic Operation and Maintenance Manuals, Workshop Summary, Federal Facilities Council Report #140, National Academy Press, 2000. ISBN 0 309 07131 3. 26. Making the Nation Safer – The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism. National Research Council, Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism, National Academy Press, 2002. http://www.nap.edu/html/stct/index.html 27. Media Report: CMD Group's 5th Annual North American Construction Forecast and FEDCON, CMD Group. http://www.nacf.com/press.html 28. O’Connor, J.T. et al, Project- and Phase-Level Technology Use Metrics for Capital Facility Projects, Center for Construction Industry Studies, Report #16, University of Texas at Austin, December 2000. http://www.ce.utexas.edu/org/ccis/home.html 29. Ogershok Dave, 2001 National Construction Estimator, 49th Edition, Craftsman Books, ISSN 05475511. 30. The National Strategy For Homeland Security. Office of Homeland Security, July 2002. 31. Partnership for the Advancement of Infrastructure and its Renewal through Innovative Technologies (PAIR) White Paper, Civil Engineering Research Foundation, Washington, D.C., October 1998. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/pubs/NISTGCR_98_765.pdf 32. Palmer, Mark, PISTEP, Process Plant Engineering Activity Model, National Institute of Standards and Technology, BFRL Computer-Integrated Construction Group. 33. Project Definition Rating Index, Industrial Projects/Project Definition Rating Index, Building Projects, Construction Industry Institute. http://cii-pdri.org/ January 2003

A-17


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 34. Report on the Construction Industry Collaborations Workshop, NIST, March 1997. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/pubs/NISTGCR_97_711.pdf 35. Setting a National Research Agenda for the Civil Engineering Profession, Executive Summary and Volumes 1 & 2, Civil Engineering Research Foundation Reports 91-F1003 and 91-F1003A, August 1991. 36. Spillinger, Ralph S., Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process, Best Practices for Reviewing Facility Designs, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report #139, National Academy Press, 1999. 37. Sustainable Federal Facilities, A guide to integrating value engineering, life-cycle costing, and sustainable development, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report #142, National Academy Press, 2001. 38. Technology Roadmap for Materials of Construction, Operation and Maintenance in the Chemical Process Industries. Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Processing Industries, Inc., December 1998. http://www.mti-link.org/members/Documents/TechRoadmap.pdf Related Roadmaps 1. Aluminum Industry Technology Roadmap. Office of Industrial Technologies. U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.oit.doe.gov/aluminum/aluminum_roadmap.shtml 2. Building Better Homes at Lower Costs: The Industry Implementation Plan for the Residential National Construction Goals. http://www.pathnet.org/publications/congoals.html 3. Building Envelope Technology Roadmap. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/technology_roadmaps/envelope/ 4. Canadian Aluminum Industry Technological Roadmap. Industry Canada. http://www.cqrda.qc.ca/cqrda/reseau.html#cai 5. Canadian Metalcasting Technology Roadmap. Industry Canada. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_indps/trm/engdoc/Metalcasting_TRM.pdf 6. Geomatics Technology Roadmap. Industry Canada. http://www.geomatics.org/index-roadmap.html 7. Lumber and Value-Added Wood Products. Industry Canada. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/fb01315e.html 8. Steelmaking. American Iron and Steel Institute. http://www.steel.org/mt/roadmap/roadmap.htm. 9. Technology Roadmap: Electrical Power. Industry Canada. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ep01229e.html 10. Vision 2020: Lighting Technology Roadmap. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/vision2020/ 11. Window Industry Technology Roadmap. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/technology_roadmaps/windows/ 12. Technology Roadmap: Information Technology To Accelerate And Streamline Home Building, Year One Progress Report, NAHB Research Center, June 2002. www.toolbase.org/Docs/ToolBaseTop/ Research/2709_ITDraft4-16.PDF?TrackID=&CategoryID=1589&DocumentID=2709.

January 2003

A-18


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Relevant Websites Site

URL

Center for Building Performance & Diagnostics (NSF Industry-University Cooperative Research Center at Carnegie Mellon)

http://www.arc.cmu.edu/cbpd/index.html

Center for the Built Environment (NSF IndustryUniversity Cooperative Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley)

http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/

Civil Engineering Research Foundation

http://www.cerf.org/indexjs.htm

Construction Industry Institute

http://construction-institute.org/

Construction Industry Marketplace

http://www.construction.com/

Construction Industry Round Table

http://www.cirt.org/public/pages/index_home.cfm

Construction Industry Users Round Table

http://CURT.Construction.com/1_0_home.html

Design-Build Institute of America

http://www.dbia.org

FIATECH

http://www.fiatech.org

Intelligent Buildings, Industry Canada

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_indps/trm/engdoc/homepage.html

National Institute of Building Sciences

http://www.nibs.org/

National Science & Technology Council: Committee on Technology

http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/committee/ct_subs.html

National Science and Technology Council: Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Construction and Building

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/860/c_b/

NIST Building & Fire Research Laboratory

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/

Office of Building Technology, State & Community Programs, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/

The Infrastructure Security Partnership

http://www.tisp.org/down.html

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technology

http://www.oit.doe.gov/industries.shtml

January 2003

A-19


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX G CAPITAL PROJECTS MODEL – FUNCTIONAL ELEMENT DEFINITIONS

January 2003

A-20


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

CAPITAL PROJECTS MODEL – FUNCTIONAL ELEMENT DEFINITIONS Element/Sub-Element

Definition PROJECT DEFINITION & PLANNING

Business/Facility/Project Planning

Includes all activities associated with scoping the contemplated project and developing a conceptual solution for both the capital facility and its means of accomplishment; includes requirements definition and feasibility assessment, technical and business risk assessment, site evaluation and selection, and development of the financial case and initial project plan.

Conceptual Process/Facility Design

Encompasses creation of the preliminary end product (e.g., process facility, building, bridge, etc.) design, which will be passed to the Detailed Design function. Includes preparation/updating of the feasibility and financial case and establishment of the guiding engineering philosophies to be used for Detailed Engineering Design.

Detailed Process/Facility Design

Produces the detailed process facility/end product design, which provides the specifications, requirements, codes and standards, validated scale prototypes, analyses, and design and operation philosophies required for the Detailed Engineering Design phase.

Detailed Engineering Design

Produces the detailed mechanical, electrical, control/instrumentation, plant/building services, and civil/structural engineering design for the plant including all specifications, drawings, construction and commissioning plans (detailed project plan), 3-D models, materials takeoff, spares lists, and any technical data required to support permitting and licensing.

Manufacture/ Fabrication

Includes all activities associated with development, engineering, manufacture, assembly, and test of materials, equipment, and other products to be used in construction of the capital facility, both for incorporation into the end product and for use in the construction process. Includes inspection and quality control of the products and processes.

Procurement & Staging

Includes all activities associated with generating the bill of material (BOM), evaluation and selection of sources, placement and management of purchase orders, receiving inspection and storage of material and equipment, control of stocks, and preparation and delivery of appropriate quantities of stock as required to support construction activities.

Construction & Pre-Commissioning

Includes all activities associated with constructing the plant/facility/end product as defined by the detail design specifications to ready the end product for commissioning, including verification that the design has been satisfied and that the result is acceptable to the commissioning team and the ongoing design change. Specific processes employed include:

CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION

• Site Prep – includes all activities associated with making the site ready for construction, including surveying and marking, dredging and filling, grading and leveling, erection of berms and fencing, and preparation of drainage and material storage and waste disposal. • Foundation Prep – preparation and placement of underlayers, preconstruction layout, pouring of footers and slabs, and similar activities. • Structural Framework – preparation, erection, and affixing/integration of all primary and secondary structural supports, including girderwork, frames, exterior and interior load-bearing walls, struts, beams, braces, trusses, and similar structures. • Exterior Functional Surfaces – preparation and installation of roofing, windows, doors, vents, masonry finishing (e.g., for weatherproofing), and similar items. • Interior Surfaces – preparation and installation of interior walls, ceilings, flooring, and similar items. • Interior & Process Infrastructure – preparation and installation of plumbing, piping, conduit, ductwork, wiring, cabling, etc. • Facility Systems – preparation, installation, checkout, and acceptance of specialized systems such as HVAC, elevators/lifts,

January 2003

A-21


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Element/Sub-Element

Definition security systems, communications systems, fire and life safety, and similar discrete systems. • Process Systems – preparation, installation, checkout, and acceptance of specialized systems to implement the primary function of the capital facility, such as materials/chemicals processing, refining, power generation, product manufacturing, etc. • Finishing, Furnishings & Fittings – installation of all remaining equipment and fittings, including plumbing and electrical fixtures, floor/wall coverings, interior decor, landscaping, painting/polishing, and all other detailed actions required to ready the facility for handover to the owner/customer.

Startup/Commissioning & Handover

Includes all activities associated with proving out the operation of all systems as defined by the detailed design specifications such that the plant can be accepted for operation. Commissioning of a process facility typically consists of a number of stages progressing from activities using either no or inert process materials to the use of production process materials.

Operation & Maintenance

Includes all routine servicing required to maintain the capital facility in a productive, safe operating condition in accordance with specifications and intended use; and tracking and evaluation of various aspects of usage, including utilities consumption, performance utilization (e.g., throughput, capacity management), and similar attributes. Includes capture of lessons learned and knowledge to feed back to Design & Planning Functions; includes Asset Management decision processes.

Upgrades & Refurbishment

Includes all activities associated with “refreshing” the facility/structure to accommodate changes in requirements over time; to replace outdated or worn-out materials, equipment, or furnishings; or to enhance performance or cost-effectiveness using improved materials or systems. Also includes assuring that the baselined as-built configuration is updated and maintained (made available) to reflect any changes introduced after project completion. This phase includes the option of “renewal” – converting the facility to a substantially different use or product line. Includes Asset Management decision processes.

Decommissioning/ Disposal

Includes all activities with removing the capital facility from operation, salvaging/recycling useful materials and equipment, disposal of waste and hazardous materials, and restoring the site to a state of readiness for future intended use.

LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT Project Coordination & Control

Has accountability for full spectrum of activities for carrying out projects. Includes collaboration and communication among all internal and external functions involved in the whole project to achieve project goals. Directs and provides systems to ensure seamless integration and successful execution of capital projects and hand-off to the customer (in time, within budget, with required quality). Makes decisions at highest level about projects and their strategic direction. Integrates project phases, assuring interoperability of activities in all the sub-element functions. Project manager collaborates on decisions about use of available, proven technologies and resources. Identifies, acquires and organizes resources needed to carry out project. Monitors, analyzes and forecasts impact of actual cost, schedule and productivity against approved baseline plan, feeds information back to functional elements, and assures that any needed corrective actions are taken.

Scope Management

Manages the scope of the project to fit the business objective. Assures that any changes planned or made in process are reviewed and approved for applicability and permissibility and subsequently captured in the master configuration baseline (i.e., asbuilt drawings).

Quality Management

Includes all activities associated with assuring that a project is accomplished in accordance with the design specifications and drawings, systematically assessing the quality of the work, processes, end products, and materials to ensure conformance to applicable regulations and codes of federal, state, and local regulatory and oversight agencies, including final inspection and acceptance by the owner/operator.

Licensing & Regulatory

Ensures that the project complies with all applicable regulations and requirements. Includes all activities associated with obtaining

January 2003

A-22


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

Element/Sub-Element

Definition required federal, state, and local permits and licenses for construction and commissioning of the capital facility, and assuring compliance with all permits and licenses in the operation, maintenance, and decommissioning and dismantling phase of the facility life cycle. Note: the design, analysis, and documentation activities associated with preparing permit and license applications are included under the Project Definition & Planning element above.

Financial/Business Management Safety, Health & Environment

January 2003

Includes all finance and business-related activities including budget, funding approval, cost collection and reporting, administrative record keeping, accounts payable/receivable, regulatory reporting, and performance monitoring and assessment. Includes coordination of inter-organizational financial arrangements as required. Includes all activities associated with providing for and assuring a safe working and operating environment for all personnel, equipment, and other assets, including compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

A-23


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

APPENDIX H WORKSHOP 1 ACTION IMPERATIVES ACTION IMPERATIVE 1: INTEGRATED LIFE-CYCLE SYSTEM GOAL: Develop and deploy a system enabling best-value business decisions at every stage of the life cycle based on total life-cycle considerations (e.g., downstream O&M and D&D needs) and providing accurate and current information from all operations and domains.

SCOPE The scope of this imperative includes all issues associated with life-cycle responsibility, from project inception to construction to dismantlement. The objective is to develop an advisor system for all aspects of capital projects. In the planning and design stages, it provides knowledge about compliance and regulatory issues, with emphasis on environmental concerns, and guides the design for decommissioning and dismantlement. In process design, it supports the selection of best process options for waste elimination, energy use, maintainability, and similar life-cycle factors. For construction operations, it is a real-time asset for helping assure the best decisions in response to scope changes or unplanned events, and for counsel in environmental compliance. This system will be integrated with all other capital project enterprise systems, such as automated design and automated performance monitoring, to support a comprehensive information and knowledge-based electronic environment.

ISSUES/BARRIERS Issues that need to be addressed in developing this system include the complexity and range of the data and knowledge that must be collected, the challenge of managing those assets, and mechanisms for implementation. Most of the data issues that must be resolved are similar to those with other databases and applications. Clearly, detailed data is required at the lowest level of fidelity – not at just a “document” level. The knowledge base must provide easy access in a shared yet secure environment. Standards regarding definitions and format for complex forms of knowledge must be established, and the knowledge base must be populated with accurate, reliable information drawing on the experience of all of industry. The issue of knowledge vs. data is significant. If the function of a system is to provide data for other systems to process, then data is the goal. However, the goal of this system is to provide advice, which is the interpretation of knowledge with respect to a defined set of conditions. Daunting data management issues must be addressed. The diversity of environmental regulations, particularly as international boundaries are crossed, makes the challenge much larger. The system must support differing regulations, languages, and cultures. Environmental issues are also difficult to bound, since they are inextricably linked to bureaucratic interpretation by different agencies with conflicting agendas. The system must enable access to legacy data, and it must be forward-compatible to support future data structures.

January 2003

A-24


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE For the system to realize its objectives, it must have strong industry support, both for development and for population of the knowledge base. That support can only be secured by the presentation of a strong business case for its success and impact. It must be recognized that the system could be perceived as threatening to some entrenched interests, and these issues would need attention. If early support can be garnered for pilot applications, the system can be grown to full implementation. It should be noted that the development of such systems are well within the scope and mission of government-funded research, in both academia and the national/federal laboratory structure.

MAJOR TASKS 1. Develop the business case for the initiative and the product, including a clear definition of goals and requirements. 2. Identify organization(s) to perform the work, and secure the needed funding. 3. Assess the industry for existing/emerging solutions that are applicable as points of leverage and create partnerships (e.g., ASP/ERP/ERM systems). 4. Develop detailed system requirements and functional specs based on user-defined needs across the entire capital projects value web. 5. Bring a critical mass of committed partners together to develop and pilot a prototype system. 6. Develop data/knowledge access and management strategies and build the knowledge base. 7. Define a phased development, testing, and implementation approach. 8. Populate the system for selected pilot projects and execute those pilots.

BENEFITS Although business decisions usually are focused on the bottom line, with this activity there is an opportunity to satisfy that need in a significant way while serving the greater good. Systematizing permitting processes and providing the best advice on all life-cycle issues will reduce the time span from project inception to construction start and also minimize design rework loops, resulting in large savings. The system will enable facility and structure designs to be optimized for all life-cycle performance attributes. This will reduce design and construction costs, utilities consumption, reduce maintenance and repair, eliminate safety issues and environmental insults, and enable the facility or structure to be quickly taken down and recycled at the end of its life. These features translate to life-cycle savings on the order of tens to hundreds of millions for large, complex facilities. By assuring that all factors are considered and the right solutions are implemented, risks to capital project success are reduced and probability of success is increased. This elimination of uncertainty reduces the need for contingencies (with attendant benefits in the capital financing equation), and will enable more aggressive decision-making in other project areas. An additional benefit of this imperative is that it does not require any radically new technologies and can be quickly implemented in pilots at fairly low cost.

January 2003

A-25


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

ACTION IMPERATIVE 2: AUTOMATED INTELLIGENT PROCESSES FOR FACILITY LIFE CYCLE GOAL: Provide intelligent systems and devices that can enhance/augment human capabilities and reduce human intervention in facility design, construction, operation, and life-cycle support.

SCOPE The scope of this activity includes the application of knowledge in creating automated, informationdriven systems that provide intelligent control of capital project processes. These systems must be able to apply knowledge, from both experience and scientific principles, to support decision-making and guide the execution and control of discrete functions. Intelligent control is based on the ability to sense, analyze, and control systems and subsystems, based on an understanding of the desired and undesired operating conditions and results. Several approaches are successful in creating knowledge-based systems, many of which have emerged from decades of research in artificial intelligence. Neural networks, which mimic the processing style of the human brain, can be trained to accurately predict system performance. Fuzzy logic systems are used in control applications to collect and analyze seemingly disjointed information and process it into meaningful results. Intelligent agents can seek out needed information and do certain tasks independently, or simply to organize and present the information. For intelligent action, a system has to perceive and understand the situation, then take the correct action. Higher functions such as “intelligence” can be added to systems only after other elements are present: integration of continuous streams of data from different sources, real-time processing, etc. Integration of knowledge systems with intelligent control presents an ultimate opportunity for dramatic change. Knowledge-based systems can be used for information generation (automated design, scheduling and resource allocation). The results of the automated operation can be integrated with modeling and simulation systems to drive a comprehensive simulation model that predicts the status, in real time, of every component and parameter of the system. Intelligent control systems can be developed to sense the environment and assure that all operations are performing within control limits. Deviations, or trends toward deviations, can be resolved in an intelligent, hierarchical control structure that prevents problems from escalating or cascading through the system. In defining the scope of this activity, its ultimate goals must be acknowledged. By building knowledgebased advisors and intelligent systems as building blocks, and integrating them in a modular, plug-andplay environment, the systems that appear on the surface as challenges too large to tackle, can be realized. The ultimate objective: a seamlessly integrated, knowledge-based capital projects environment including: • Capture of project requirements and optimized planning based on business and technical requirements • Automated design of every aspect of the capital project • Seamlessly integrated, intelligent data and information management • Intelligent construction operations • Life-cycle operations and maintenance as part of the integrated project planning and execution process.

January 2003

A-26


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

ISSUES/BARRIERS One of the major barriers to automated and intelligent systems is a cultural one. Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of replacing human intelligence with “artificial intelligence,� due to factors such as labor sensitivity and aversion to risk. For this and other reasons, discussion of artificial intelligence has been replaced with discussions of how knowledge can be managed for productivity and cost benefit. Another barrier is the linkage to knowledge management, a topic that has attracted much trade press attention and funding. While much good has come from the movement, high expectations led to many disappointments and a view that much of the funding was wasted. The indiscriminate capture of everything known is not the goal. The goal should be the capture and organized representation of meaningful knowledge in a framework that allows it to be easily applied to better perform a specific job. An enabler for knowledge-based systems is a common understanding and vocabulary. There are efforts (such as the PlantSTEP initiative) to create a standard vocabulary, but this has proven to be a difficult task. A comprehensive ontology (understanding of terms and their context) is essential to providing a solid foundation for intelligent systems that are able to interact effectively. Availability and creation of knowledge is also an issue. In most of today’s advisor applications (like the spell-checker in a word-processing program), knowledge is simply captured in rule form from the experts. The ability of systems to learn from scientific principles, documents (operation instructions and procedures, etc.) and from experience in performing their functions, and then refine that knowledge for better decision-making, is vital.

MAJOR TASKS 1. Create a dictionary to capture meaning of terms and designs used for the construction industry. Enrich the dictionary beyond the definitions to an understanding of context. 2. Develop the automated ability to translate between the languages and standards used for different parts or tasks of a capital project (interoperability of terms and standards for knowledge representation). 3. Develop a broadly applicable knowledge repository framework and adopt standard methods for digitally capturing and representing knowledge. 4. Build learning mechanisms for capturing expertise relevant to the capital construction industry and for managing that knowledge via the repository. 5. Select high-priority applications and apply knowledge-based systems and intelligent control in automating the generation of design information and the control of related operations. 6. Build the knowledge bases, application-by-application and pilot-by-pilot, to systematically demonstrate value and feasibility of automated intelligent systems and processes in all aspects of the project life cycle.

BENEFITS Many examples of dramatic cost savings have been documented through the application of knowledgebased systems in different industries. Improved capabilities and widespread application will multiply these benefits. For individual applications (within specific domains of a capital project), automated information generation will reduce the time required for information-intensive tasks from weeks to days or hours. As the integrated advisory and design systems move to reality, these time spans will be reduced to mere minutes, with corresponding savings in labor cost and error avoidance. Intelligent systems also will reduce cost and schedule uncertainty, thereby reducing risks for the whole project. Intelligent systems and

January 2003

A-27


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE process assistants will provide dramatically faster ability to respond to market opportunities and changes in requirements and business conditions. Armed with a growing knowledge base and a high-fidelity, multi-dimensional simulation model of the project product and execution processes, intelligent systems can focus on what-if analysis of a given situation, apply changes to the model quickly with minimal effort, explore and evaluate multiple scenarios, and rapidly drive to the best decisions. An intelligent system could autonomously monitor all information concerning a project in the background, and alert management when attractive options for costsavings or other improvements become available. Such a system could enable true collaboration among all project stakeholders by providing shared access to industry knowledge. Probably the highest level of intelligent automation will come when genuine understanding of natural language (not just speech recognition) becomes available, enabling the capture of the intent of verbal instructions and relating that to the situation and previous knowledge. This will enable systems to learn and ask questions of experts, and use the accumulated knowledge to make increasingly better decisions over time. Intelligent control will be the mechanism that automatically translates knowledge, data, and decisions into correct actions – from a single construction task or process operation, to a complex array of integrated activities and systems. Savings from assured best operational practices will be dramatic. Continuously optimized and controlled processes will dramatically reduce cost and time by eliminating downtime for critical operations, by eliminating lags between tasks, by multiplying the productivity of workers, and by preventing waste and error through assured quality.

ACTION IMPERATIVE 3: AUTOMATIC REAL-TIME PERFORMANCE/STATUS TRACKING GOAL: Automatically collect pertinent, real-time status and performance data from all aspects of the Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Operations, Maintenance, and Decommissioning (EPCOMD) operations, and manage and supply this data in the form of meaningful information to provide clear visibility and precise control of all processes.

SCOPE There are three components within the scope of this imperative: 1) data collection and management, 2) automated tracking, and 3) performance monitoring. The scope includes the collection and management of all information necessary for management and control from the time that the business plan is set and requirements are in place, through to the end of facility/structure decommissioning. Data collection from multiple sources and locations will be totally automated, and there will be only single entry of any discrete data point. “All data” includes input from planners, engineers, subcontractors, suppliers, operations and business managers, foremen, workers, sensors on the job site, devices attached to equipment, and other sources. Data to be collected includes: • Facility/structure detailed design, down to material level (baseline for assessment) • Detailed master schedule and cost allocation, down to lowest level of the WBS and BOM and linked to estimate/quote source (baseline for assessment) • Master simulation model of workflow and tasking (baseline for assessment)

January 2003

A-28


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE • Individual task status vs. plan at specified intervals – by minute, hour, day, week, etc. as appropriate for each task – from all task leads, vendors, suppliers, and subcontractors during design, procurement, construction, etc. • Operational system/equipment/component status (from sensors) vs. defined performance requirements • Resources (equipment, materials, supplies, and labor) location, status, and utilization vs. plan • Environmental and health/safety data (for compliance assessment and reporting) • Problem reports and status from all functions and systems. The other part of the equation is what can be done with the data beyond keeping managers apprised of status. The system will be utilized to provide information for any other system or application that needs it (e.g., support financial systems such as payroll and accounts payable), thus greatly reducing the time and cost of routine administrative functions and payment cycles of contractors for work performed.

ISSUES/BARRIERS Issues that must be considered focus on availability of and access to the needed data, availability of appropriate sensors, the structure and operation of the database, interoperability of sensors and data systems, and the utilization of the system for cost effective results. The success of the automated tracking system is strongly dependent on access to the right data, and the management of that data to provide interoperable access to systems that need it. Today, most data is managed internal to the systems, and exchange is from system-to-system. Control of distributed data in a secure environment that delivers immediate access to authorized users who need it, while preventing unauthorized access, is an issue to be addressed. The tracking system requires active sensors to automatically capture and provide “net relevant” information. This demands a sensing environment whereby status of all materials, personnel, systems, equipment, etc. is automatically fed to the system. These different assets require different types of sensors – cheap, reusable sensors for bulk materials, ruggedized sensors for harsh environments, multispectral sensors for assessing different electromagnetic parameters, etc., each with different onboard processing demands but all able to sense, interpret input, and communicate net relevant information to the system for reporting and control. For automated performance tracking to be successful, it must have a positive impact on the bottom line. A business case must document the cost of redundant data entry and the lack of needed information, and be established early in the activity to develop the necessary support. The “multi-D” master simulation model is a critical capability for automated tracking. The ability to know what “should be” the state of the project, coupled with the real-time data that defines the present state, is key to converting status input to requirements for command action.

MAJOR TASKS 1. Develop a business case for automated performance/status tracking. 2. Determine the state of the art in enabling technologies and benchmark best practices. 3. Establish a common understanding of what will be accomplished, including a comprehensive definition of the intelligent job site, and a requirements document as an agreed-upon strategy for moving forward. 4. Identify data requirements to enable the system, identify the data now available, and conduct a gap analysis to identify needed data that is not now available.

January 2003

A-29


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE 5. Define a strategy for integration of the data management and automated tracking capability with the master simulation model. 6. Develop a data management framework and populate the database. 7. Develop sensor systems and processing capabilities to automate data capture. 8. Conduct phased pilots of the automated tracking system for various elements of EPCOM organizations. 9. Develop strategies for integration of automated tracking into existing facilities and projects. 10. Conduct pilots in existing facilities. 11. Use the pilot project results to refine requirements for an integrated “production” system.

BENEFITS The benefit of automated real-time performance tracking is universal and continuous access to all the right data and information – and just the right information – needed to manage the construction and operation of the capital facility in optimum fashion. Integration with the multi-D master simulation model will provide the capability to instantly identify any deviation in performance against the defined plan, enabling corrective action and rapid containment of impacts. These capabilities will eliminate many of the uncertainties which now frustrate the capital projects industry, delivering assurance of performance to cost, schedule and quality commitments. Automated tracking will enable instant visibility of project progress for every function, including activities across the supply network. Any deviation from cost or schedule or defined performance parameters, or any potential problem recognized based on automated trend analysis, will be immediately flagged for attention. Problem resolution will be enhanced because all information needed for evaluating options and determining solutions will be right to hand. Materials and other resources will be available as needed and where needed, or the reasons why will be quickly visible. The system will enable new supplier relationships. Just-in-time delivery of materials and equipment will be achievable because of the continuous visibility of status and location across the supply network. Business functions will be enhanced. For example, payment for subcontracted work can be done automatically via funds transfer after automated notification of proper completion as determined by integrated sensing and control functions. This will eliminate delays and paperwork, greatly reducing administrative requirements and tremendously strengthening the trust in relationships, in turn eliminating adversarial behavior and reducing litigation.

January 2003

A-30


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

ACTION IMPERATIVE 4: UNIFIED DATA, INFORMATION, & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT GOAL: Provide “universal” standards and technologies for sharing, managing, and using data, information, and knowledge in every phase, element, and function of the capital facility life cycle.

SCOPE This imperative is all about access to the right data, information, and knowledge to support the planning and execution of capital projects. The scope includes all activities associated with acquiring data, information, and knowledge and managing those assets for controlled access on demand by people and systems. It does not include the applications. Management of information is critically important to the capital projects industry, as it is to all industry sectors. Inability to access needed information (and lack of knowledge about what information even exists) is very costly in capital projects. The lack of interoperability inherent to current information systems results in the re-entry of data, introduction of errors, and the loss of valuable information. While the magnitude of the cost of data re-entry has not been fully documented for the capital projects industry, a 1999 study by NIST detailed a cost to the automotive industry of over $1 billion/year. It would be safe to say that hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars are lost in the capital projects industry each year because of similar data/information management issues. While the scope of the imperative includes data, information, and knowledge, the topic of knowledge management is addressed separately, because the strategies are different. Knowledge management has emerged as an exciting field over the past few years. Many companies have invested in capturing the critical knowledge of their staff, and in managing that knowledge as a corporate resource. “Lessons learned” systems are an example of a rudimentary strategy for knowledge management. The challenge of this activity is to go beyond the bounds of individual organizations, to build a shared knowledge system that will serve an entire industry.

ISSUES/BARRIERS The challenge of universal data access in a controlled environment is large. Most of the issues relate to a consensus to cooperate and the business case to do so; the availability of information; standards and mechanisms for capturing validated data and knowledge in useful form; and strategies for information sharing. Before a shared information effort is undertaken, it must be put in the business context. There must be a business case to cause companies to want to support the effort. As far as can be determined, there has been no effort to quantify the benefits of such an undertaking, although most recognize the inherent value. A barrier that should be acknowledged is the short-term focus and competitive nature of all industries, which makes these kinds of crosscutting strategic thrusts difficult to justify internally to an organization. The counter to that argument is that the champions and early adopters will gain a significant competitive advantage that will take years for the lagging adopters to make up. Definition of the right information is a major barrier. The scope of information related to the capital projects industry is huge. It is important that the right focus be established to assure the maximum benefit. While it might be tempting to start with regulations and compliance data (such as Material Safety Data Sheets), the initiative must address real problem areas where solutions will deliver the greatest return on investment, financially and from other performance perspectives.

January 2003

A-31


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE Access control is another major issue. Companies will want to protect proprietary advantage, and knowledge is the wellspring of that advantage. There may also be information that the industry needs to share that is simply not available. A cooperative environment where the potential users determine the information of value and agree to help deliver this information is imperative for success. Methods of information management must be determined. If there were clear and unique standards for data representation, this challenge would be lessened. Systems must be established to assure the seamless exchange of data among repositories and applications. Knowledge management brings additional challenges. Agreement on the right way to perform work or to process information is the basis for rule generation in knowledge capture. That consensus does not come easy. Rules must be scientifically sound, which implies an R&D investment. The ability to maintain a dynamic, learning knowledge base demands feedback into the knowledge repository and the continuing analysis and processing of information. Knowledge management strategies are emerging, and may not be compatible with current ways of managing data and information. An interesting challenge for this activity will be the development of a storage, management, and retrieval strategy that satisfies all information needs.

MAJOR TASKS Data/Information Repository: 1. Establish a core team of partner organizations to champion and execute the initiative. 2. Survey ongoing related activities in the capital projects industry and other sectors. Review the lessons learned and develop a requirements document and plan. 3. Understand the data formats of important industry systems that must be accommodated. Determine available standards and strategies, and select a preferred approach that supports the ultimate objectives. 4. Define and prioritize early data sets for inclusion, with identification of points for decision and refinement. 5. Develop the prototype database and populate with available data. Evaluate in pilots. 6. Establish permanent “housing� and management strategy for the system, and grow it to its intended industry-wide utilization. Shared Knowledge Repository 1. Establish a collaborative group forum of experts for exchange of knowledge about the capital projects industry, and utilize this forum as a knowledge-capture mechanism. 2. Benchmark some of the leaders in knowledge management (e.g. Chevron/Texaco, Xerox, Roche, and document lessons learned and keys to success. 3. Evaluate available knowledge management strategies from a technical and business feasibility perspective, and determine the best methods to carry forward. 4. Pick a starting point connected with systems that have agreed-upon value (e.g. Primavera, SAP, Intergraph), and build the knowledge base around the common tools. Engage the application community to support necessary extensions and enhancements. 5. Grow and pilot the knowledge system into a broadly shared knowledge repository, managed for the success of the capital projects industry.

January 2003

A-32


CAPITAL PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING INITIATIVE

BENEFITS The benefits are diverse, but they all revolve around the ability to have the needed information, when it is needed, and validated for assured value. From this availability comes enhanced performance of critical activities, better decisions, seamless integration of processes, and elimination of the interoperability barrier. All of these factors translate to huge cost savings and shorter cycle times in every activity, particularly in the design and planning phase. There are specific advantages. The sharing of data enables the supply network to operate more effectively with instant sharing of information. For companies that compete and operate globally, there are competitive advantages to be realized through the cost reductions and efficiencies of better information and better information availability. The global competitiveness of the U.S. industry itself would be strengthened. The knowledge management strategy supports many applications such as the intelligent jobsite, automated design, and automated tracking, all of which will deliver dramatic cost and efficiency improvements.

January 2003

A-33

http://fiatech.org/images/stories/techroadmap/deliverables/march2003/CPTRoadmap2002  

http://fiatech.org/images/stories/techroadmap/deliverables/march2003/CPTRoadmap2002.pdf

Advertisement