Project Control PROFESSIONAL - AcostE...4 Project Control Professional July 2018 Dear Colleagues,...

The Journal of the Association of Cost Engineers

Project ControlPROFESSIONALProject ControlPROFESSIONALVol. 56 No 4 July 2018

How robots and digitization will change the waywe work

How robots and digitization will change the waywe work

Open source benchmarking

Construction economic briefing

Active forecasting – process improvement

Off-site construction – full-scale testing

Cutting down on downtime


Construction economic briefing

Active forecasting – process improvement

Off-site construction – full-scale testing


2 Project Control Professional July 2018 Project Control Professional July 2018 3

contents

Volume 56 No 4

July 2018

ISSN: 1750-371X

Project Control Professional is publishedby The Association of Cost Engineers

EditorClive WellingsTel: 01691 829421Email: [email protected]

Assistant EditorVanessa TattersallThe Association of Cost EngineersLea House 5 Middlewich RoadSandbach CW11 1XL

Office times: 9.00–4.00 Mon–Thurs9.00–3.00 Fri

Tel: 01270 764798Fax: 01270 766180Email: [email protected]: www.acoste.org.uk

Advertising ManagerDavid Singh7 Priory GardensHamptonMiddlesexTW12 2PZTel: 020 8979 9858Mob: 07939 551929Email: [email protected]

Circulated to all members of the ACostENon-member subscription: £50 (UK)£60 overseas (airmail) Back numbers: £6 each

© The Association of Cost EngineersAll rights reserved

While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the material published in Project Control Professional, neither the Association, nor their agents can accept any responsibility for the veracity of claims made by contributors, manufacturers oradvertisers

Printed in the UK by Buxton Press LimitedPalace RoadBuxtonDerbyshireSK17 6AE

Front coverHow robots and digitization will change the way

we work. See story on page 10.Photograph: sharonkgilbert.com

4 President’s message

4 News & events

5 Your route to professional status via ACostE

6 Platform view: Open source benchmarkingby Vikas Khaitan

7 About people: New ACostE Council Members

8 Cutting down on downtimeby Martin Carter

10 Cover story: How robots and digitization willchange the way we work

11 White paper: Off-site construction – the relevance of full-scale testingby Dr Geoff Edgell

16 Construction economic briefing: Quarter one,2018New feature by Karl Horton

20 Technical paper: Active forecasting – process improvementFinal part of the series by Anastasia Ball

23 News & events

24 Technical abstracts

25 New members

26 Diary of events

27 Association Council

27 ICEC news

Estimating Methodologyand Practice Course

The Course provides an overview of the principles and practices of estimating andhow the role is linked to all activities company-wide, demanding of the practitioner a

range of technical skills and inter-personal abilities.

The Course is suitable for both those new to the field, those who already have someexperience or, indeed, anybody who needs to know and understand the

Estimating Process although it may not be their primary role.

It is presented over 3 days using presentation slides together with worked examplesbased on real situations, and is supported by a wealth of background information.

Course Programme 201818th – 20th September 13th – 15th November

(All being held at the IBIS Styles Hotel, Emperor Way, Crewe, Cheshire CW1 6BD)

In-house Courses are also available.

For more details please contact Helen Jackson, Centre ManagerE-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 01270 763646 Website: www.tasc.eu.com

Lea House, 5 Middlewich Road, Sandbach, Cheshire CW11 1XL

© 2018 TASC

Centre of Excellence forAssessment, Mentoring & Training

Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

APPROVED PROVIDER

4 Project Control Professional July 2018

Dear Colleagues,

One of the interesting things about

President’smessage

our profession are the differing viewson how to define ‘Cost Engineering’.

The Directors of ACostE will bedelighted to know what our membersfeel that the definition could be.

To get the debate started, here is anexample:

‘Cost Engineering: Cost, schedule andresource analysis, planning, estimating,forecasting, QS, risk management, andchange management practices.

‘The word “engineering” reflects the

news & events

linkage of cost and schedule skills withspecific technical knowledge.

‘Cost engineers work jointly withproject teams to optimise project scopeand improve business value.’

Please email your definition [email protected].

Regards,Angela PammenterPresident ACostE

news & events

Southern RegionTechnical Meeting

James Studman, Speaker

ACostE Southern Region held a tech-nical meeting on ‘Contract Law andAdjudication’ on 10 May at the RoyalOver-Seas League in London. Thespeaker was James Studman, who gavean excellent presentation on thissubject by using, as a basis, the case ofAspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v.Higgins Construction plc. James hasfollowed the development of this pro-

tracted case since 2009 through to theSupreme Court. His talk discussed thecircumstances of this particular caseand the interaction between theLimitation Act 1980 and the Con-struction Act 1996, amended 2011. Heexpanded on how we can avoid thepitfalls and learn lessons from this casefor the benefit of future disputes.(James’s talk was published in ProjectControl Professional in September2016.)James is a Director of ACostE and

Secretary of the Southern Region. It is

Your route to professional status

via ACostE

Leadership teamcoachingWhat happens when an organization’sneeds go beyond the ability of a singleleader? As organizations become morecomplex and need greater flexibility inorder to implement significant rapidchange, a high-performing leadershipteam is essential for success. Develophigh-performing transformational lead-ership teams with international case

studies from Leadership TeamCoaching in Practice: Case Studies onDeveloping High-Performing Teams.This book provides best practiceexamples of how techniques have beenapplied internationally across indus-tries including professional services,pharmaceuticals, airlines, healthcare

and finance. Read about multipleexpert perspectives through contri-butions from chief executives, teamcoaches, team leaders and con-sultants.This new edition includes new case

studies and tackles hot topics insystemic leadership coaching theory.Understand how to get the most from

working across multiple teams, how toapproach inter-team coaching and howto coach millennials and start-ups,which are all essential skills in thecurrent world.Published by Kogan Page ISBN: 9780749482381 RRP: £29.99

Project Control Professional July 2018 5

encouraging to have younger membersof the ACostE giving presentations tothe members; the Region will alwaysbe pleased to hear from any othermembers who may wish to have theopportunity to give a presentation.

Stephen AllenChairman, ACostE Southern Region

Certified Professional Cost Engineer

Nigel Coffin, BAE Systems Maritime Services (right), receives his CertifiedProfessional Cost Engineer award from Alan Jones, ACostE Accreditation BoardChairman (left). Nigel is the first from BAE Systems to achieve his CPCostE, andothers are expected to follow. Our congratulations to you, Nigel. The Associationlooks forward to continuing to work with BAE Systems on all levels ofAccreditation. Accreditation Board of the Association of Cost Engineers


about people

Maisie Jasper – recently promoted to Head of Process EPC Costand Planning at Doosan Babcock in Renfrew

Maisie joined Doosan Babcock in2017 as a Principal Cost Engineerto assist with the growth in the newprocess sector at DoosanBabcock. She started her career with a

degree from the University ofOxford in Mathematics and Philo-sophy. Maisie has held variouspositions mainly within the oil & gassector, both within project controlsand estimating. Maisie was alsoseconded to South Africa during

one particular project. Before joining Doosan Babcock she wasbased at Fawley Refinery.Maisie commented: ‘I’d like to see the ACostE become more

relevant to all its members, regardless of location, using thepower of technology, for example, by expanding the library ofuseful links and investigating whether we could possibly accesse-books. Maybe in the future we could look into arrangingwebinars on certain topics. ‘I’d also like to see the Journal become more accessible by

mixing in shorter articles amongst the more technical content;perhaps covering areas such as career development or CVwriting, which will be of interest to newer members. ‘What excites me about the profession is how its relevance is

becoming increasingly recognised across a variety of industries,as projects become ever more complex and budgets ever morescrutinised. I once heard project controls described as “organizedcommon sense” by a highly experienced NVQ Assessor, and atthe time I found it slightly disheartening to think that what I wasdoing was “just” common sense rather than a “proper job”! As theyears have gone on I have come to realise just how difficult it canbe in practice to apply this organized common sense, and howvaluable our skills and contributions really are. I believe there arefew organizations that would not benefit from really good projectcontrols (if they don’t already have them).‘The ACostE works for the benefit of all its members, which is

why it’s really important to get involved and let us know what youwould like to see from the Association in the future.’In Maisie’s spare time she enjoys baking with her young

daughter. Maisie’s family has recently adopted a puppy, who isvery energetic; they are looking forward to exploring beautifulScotland together including the islands.

Debbie Rye – Head of EPC Estimating at Doosan Babcock inRenfrew

Debbie was appointed in 2014 asa Project Controls Manager andthen transferred to strategicProject Controls Business Centre.

Debbie started her career withan electrical technician appren-ticeship with Thames Water. Shehas progressed through variousroles in project management,procurement and project con-trols in various sectors includingthe petrochemical and powerindustries.

Debbie commented: ‘I’d like ACostE to embrace thediversity of the membership and the changing application ofthe roles represented by the Association. I’d also like to seemore technological advancement, which the new website willassist with.

‘I have seen with interest the development of theaccreditation by ACostE for career paths to ensure projectcontrols is aligned with the Engineering Council’s require-ments. ACostE also have been working hard with otheraccreditation bodies with regard to standardising acceptablelevels of competency for recognised roles, which is excellent.

‘I really enjoy my working life and in particular that no twodays are ever the same – I am challenged daily by thechanging requirements of the projects I am involved with.The largest frustration is not being given the recognition ofmy professional input; I am not just a necessary evil but addvalue to any project if my role is understood and used to thefull potential.

‘I would like a better work–life balance and I am told I ama little bit of a workaholic. Hopefully, by networking morewithin the Association, I can get more insight into thisdelicate, but important, requirement.

‘I’d really like more active involvement by members ofACostE. I think it is important to shape the Association basedon the whole membership. I truly believe that everyone cancontribute and every day I can learn something from listeningto others. As a full-time worker and mother of two, the morethe involvement by others means shared resources that canbe used. If I can find the time anyone can.’

Incidentally, Debbie was once run over by bright redLondon double decker bus while roller skating in the snow.Although unconscious for a few days no lasting damage wasevident…

Debbie is married to Darren and they have two very activedaughters. In Debbie’s spare time she enjoys travelling,baking (very good chocolate fudge cake) and gardening.

New ACostE Council Elected Members from Doosan BabcockMaisie Jasper and Debbie Rye were both recently elected onto the ACostE Council. Debbie Rye

was already the Chair for the Scottish Region

Send your news about people to the Editor.

Email [email protected]

PLATFORMview

by Vikas Khaitan*

* Vikas Khaitan has 19 years ofexperience in cost estimating of lump-sum EPC onshore oil & gas projects. Hehas worked with multinational operatorand engineering companies such as BP,CB&I and Foster Wheeler in the UK, andthe Technip group in their New Delhi,India, office. Vikas has been working atBP since the beginning of 2012 as theLead Estimator (based in London), on acontract basis. He is passionate aboutestimating as a discipline and has been amember of ACostE since 2005 and amember of AACE International since2011. Vikas is a Certified EstimatingProfessional as certified by AACEInternational, since February 2014 Heruns his own blog atwww.vkestimating.wordpress.com, whichhe has started in order to share hisestimating knowledge and experienceswith the wider community.

Benchmarking is one of the criticalaspects of estimating. Anyestimate, when supported with

suitable benchmarking, becomes easierto explain and get approvals for. It is a‘top down’ approach to validate/cross-check any estimate. Benchmarking alsohelps to identify the major differencesin scope of the current project from atypical project from around the globe.Benchmarks are very useful duringcommercial bid evaluations todemonstrate that the best value isbeing obtained from the market.

If sufficient historical data fromsimilar previously executed projects isavailable within the organization, thensuitable in-house benchmarks can bedeveloped to support the currentestimate. Alternatively, there arespecialist companies who provide thirdparty benchmarking services forspecific type of projects. Thesecompanies have collected data fromvarious owners and contractors andhave built up their own databases torespond to various benchmarkingrequests.

However, for some projects, theremay not be any suitable in-housedatabases available and for variousreasons (lack of funds, time required toplace a contract, etc.) engagement of athird party might be difficult. In thosecases, instead of not providing anybenchmarking to support the estimateduring the review process, I wouldrecommend trying to generate a fit-for-purpose benchmark curve usingopen source information from theInternet. A surprising amount of usableinformation is freely available on theInternet, through news reporting,company websites, governmentannouncements, etc. It mightsometimes need a significant numberof estimator-hours to undertakeInternet research to find any suitabledata, but when generated could proveto be very useful.

For example, for power plant

projects, there could be news articleson the Internet when a major contractis placed with its value and MWcapacity. If enough data is gatheredfrom the Internet, then an overall costvs capacity (MW) curve could begenerated as a benchmarking tool,roughly showing the market values ofdifferent capacity power plants.

Similarly, for pipeline projects, newsarticles might advertise the total valueand the pipeline diameter and lengthwhen a major project is awarded. Abenchmark graph could be generatedfor the cost/km value against thevarious diameters.

No two projects are exactly similar,but this kind of benchmarking willdefinitely give an idea of the expectedrange. It can also be used duringconcept engineering and also forbid/no-bid analysis.

Such benchmarking can be used inaddition to, or in the absence of, anyin-house or any third partybenchmarking data. These graphswould be free of cost, fully transparentand auditable, and can be easily sharedwith everybody, as there would be noproprietary data issues.

Clients always want to know (at avery high level) how much others have

paid for a similar project. They willdefinitely do their own research, but ifthe estimate comes with this kind ofsupporting document, it immediatelygenerates that extra level ofconfidence in the estimate.

Case in pointDuring the approval process for thesanctioning of project X, in addition tothe in-house benchmarking graph andalso third party check-estimates, Iprepared and successfully presented anadditional Internet-based open sourcebenchmarking graph as a supportingdocument with the overall estimate.This was done to generate additionalconfidence in the estimate presentedand also to demonstrate what unitprice others were paying for similarprojects.

In another project, there was no in-house data, and the third partybenchmarking exercise was perceivedto be too expensive for the projectbudget. I successfully developed andpresented a suitable Internet-basedopen source benchmarking graphwhich was well received, both by theinternal management and also theclient’s team including governmentauthorities.

Note: It may not always be possible, for aparticular kind of project, to generateany suitable benchmarking from Internet-based information.




In any manufacturing or engineeringfacility, extracting maximum valuefrom the available assets is at theheart of optimising production

performance and profitability.Equipment that is not functioning

effectively – or failing entirely – posesa major issue for companies operatingin increasingly competitive market-places, where a missed order deadlinecan spell commercial disaster in theform of a lost contract – to say nothingof the reputational damage that can alsoensue.Any unexpected downtime also

comes with its own costs in the form ofemergency maintenance, possibly in-volving the use of external suppliersand the sourcing of spares, often at aprice premium, to get machinery upand running. Production staff still haveto be paid even if they cannot undertaketheir tasks due to the unavailability ofequipment.These issues were amply dem-

onstrated in a report published recentlyby Oneserve, which estimated the costof machine downtime to the UKmanufacturing sector at a massive£180bn, with each of the UK’s 133,000manufacturers on average experiencingan incident of downtime every two andhalf months. This equated to an annualcost per company in excess of £60,000with some manufacturers worse off byhalf a million pounds or even more.Some two-thirds of the respondentsacknowledged that downtime erodedcustomer satisfaction, so closely linkedto competitiveness in today’s world.More than half of the downtime was

attributed to hidden internal faults. Theidentification of these faults, ideallybefore they occur and finding a way tomitigate them, is crucial to minimisingthis risk.Plant maintenance has often been a

mainly reactive process, with parts rununtil they failed and then replaced.

However, the drive to optimiseproductivity, reliability and to consis-tently deliver against schedule commit-ments, means that this approach hasbecome outdated. The focus hasswitched firmly to the proactivemanagement of the maintenance andservicing of plant equipment. Inessence, the approach is one of prev-entative maintenance – taking delib-erate, planned steps to minimise therisk of failure of mission-criticalequipment before it can happen.Instead of the cost of individual partsbeing at the heart of decision making,total cost of ownership (TCO) of plantis now the main driver.A variety of techniques are typically

implemented in a preventative main-tenance programme, with activitycentred on time-based, condition-basedor usage-based monitoring. Regulartasks are undertaken, such as checks oncritical equipment, oil and filterchanges and lubrication, with the con-dition of equipment recorded. Under-taking this regularly provides main-tenance teams with vital information onthe rate of deterioration of critical partsand, therefore, the likely date at whichthey will fail – allowing them toschedule shutdowns at convenienttimes for replacement of individual

components, routine maintenance andservicing, or a complete overhaul. Astrategy can also be put in place to lookat alternatives for parts identified as‘bad actors’ – those that do not reachtheir expected service life or requireregular interventions.In the long term, this approach has

been proven to be far more cost-effective than a strategy based on ‘runto failure’, as the risk of unanticipatedfailure of equipment, with all itsassociated issues, can be virtuallynegated, while overall equipmenteffectiveness (OEE) is optimised.Equally important to remember is

that robust maintenance procedures arevital in helping companies ensure thatthey comply with both equipmentwarranty requirements and legallybinding industry regulations. The twomain areas of regulation in the surfacetreatment sector are the Provision andUse of Work Equipment Regulations1998 (PPUWER) and the Health &Safety Executive’s (HSE) Control ofSubstances Hazardous to Health.Properly implemented, preventative

maintenance helps to safeguard em-ployees against the risk of injury fromequipment failures and from chemicalspills, leaks and fires – negating therisk of further downtime, reputationaldamage and potential legal rami-fications.Attention should also be paid to the

Industrial Emissions Directive (IED),which governs the maintenance andcondition of air and fume extractionequipment, and the ‘Consent to Dis-charge’ regulations embodied in theWater Resources Act 1991 (amendedby the Environmental Act 1995), whichgoverns the use of water treatmentsystems and the discharge of effluent.So, how can a preventative main-

tenance strategy aimed at reducingunscheduled downtime be optimallyapplied in a surface finishing facility?

In the main, equipment used in thesefacilities falls under three main cat-egories: automated lines, manual linesand fume extraction systems. Auto-mated and manual processing linestypically cover processes such as:cleaning, chemical etching, electrolessplating, electrolytic plating, hard orchromic anodising, tartaric sulphuricanodising (TSA) and conversion coat-ing, such as alocrom or phosphating.Usually designed to fulfil application-specific requirements, fume extractionsystems are employed to control pollu-tion and emissions and fulfil biologicalmonitoring. Each type of plant issubject to a variety of potential threatsto its operation.For example, any damage to the

physical integrity of a process tankcreates a potentially significant health& safety and environmental issue. Thisissue can result from a number ofcauses, such as residual stress fromwelding and fabrication; an unevensurface finish, which can result inlocalised corrosion; as well as briefincidences of rapid crack growth result-ing from short-term heat stress duringcleaning operations.Overheating equipment is liable to

unanticipated and catastrophic failure.This often emanates from the failedoperation of heating and coolingelements. In the worst cases, this cancause a fire – an even greater risk insites where flammable chemicals are inuse – resulting in potentially terminaldamage to both equipment and thebuilding fabric.Chemical spillages and leakages,

either during handling, or as a result ofinadequate or failing pipes, valves orpumps, can cause severe damage tonearby plant equipment which is notsufficiently protected against this risk,

to say nothing of the health & safetyramifications for production operativesworking in the area.Meanwhile, fume extraction equip-

ment, if not properly maintained, cansubject employees to unsafe levels ofnoxious gases and other health hazardssuch as a legionella threat.Perhaps most important of all, how-

ever, is the impact of wear and tearresulting from routine machinery oper-ation. Virtually any component inmoving equipment will eventuallywear and, if not replaced, is liable tofail without warning, leading topotentially catastrophic failure of themachinery and significant unscheduleddowntime.To guard against the risk of these

issues and associated downtime – or atleast to be in a position to proactivelymanage the deterioration of parts – aregular, planned programme of main-tenance and servicing is essential. Stricttesting should be undertaken on allmoving parts in mechanical operations,as well as tanks structures. In electrical,control and automation applications,

gauges, sensors and control devicesmust also be inspected regularly toensure that they are functioning opti-mally. Similar rigorous attention shouldbe paid to the condition of current feedsand the physical integrity of cablingand trunking. These procedures, coupled with

thorough analysis of the ongoing con-dition of components, will make asignificant impact on reducing the riskof unscheduled downtime resultingfrom unplanned or catastrophic com-ponent failure, and instead enable aproactive approach with regular,scheduled, plant stoppages for majortasks or system overhauls. Whateverthe size and make-up of the surfaceengineering facility involved, theeffects will be immediate and positive,reducing TCO and delivering a long-term impact on productivity, qualityand commercial performance.There are different types of service

and maintenance outsourcing supportavailable in the market. By outsourcingthe maintenance of process plant to aspecialist provider, manufacturingfacilities can take reassurance from thefact they are taking steps to improvecritical asset reliability and perform-ance and avoid costly unplanneddowntime. This will create peace ofmind for business leaders and allowthem to focus on improving other areasof business performance.

As a leading supplier of metal surfacetreatment, NDT and process waterrecycling plant, NHE provides a holisticapproach to complex process plantservicing and maintenance, offering atiered structure suited to differentoperational requirements. For moreinformation on NHE, visit:www.nhe.uk.com.

A recently published report estimated the annual cost of downtime to UK industry at £180 billion.However, in some facilities, maintenance procedures are still not sufficiently geared to minimisingunscheduled downtime and the issues it causes. In this article, Martin Carter, Service Manager atNHE, examines the issues surrounding downtime, as well as the need for a more proactiveapproach and the advantages this can bring when effectively applied in the surface engineeringsector.

In the long term,this approach

has been provento be far morecost-effectivethan a strategybased on ‘run to

failure’

Virtually anycomponent in

movingequipment willeventually wear

and, if notreplaced, isliable to fail

without warning

DATA PROTECTION LAW is changing and we want to keep you up to date with the steps ACostE is taking.On the 25th May the General Data Protection Regulation, known as GDPR, came into effect. GDPR imposes additional obligations on associations and gives you extra rights around how your data is used.We want you to know that ACostE respects the information we hold on you and that we take the security of yourinformation very seriously.We have recently published a new Privacy Notice to give you more information on the data we hold on you, whatwe do with that data and your new rights under GDPR. Our updated Privacy Notice is now available to view on ourwebsite, www.acoste.org.uk.Kind regardsThe ACostE Team


cover story

‘automatica’, leading trade fair for robotics and automation

How robots and digitization will change the way we work

With around 1.8 millionindustrial robots, the num-ber of robots has reached a

new record in factories around theworld. Workers around the world ratethe fact that colleague robots can takeover work that is detrimental to healthor handle hazardous materials posit-ively (64 per cent on average). However,employees are worried about how theirown training can keep up with the paceof the working world 4.0. These are thefindings of the automatica Trend Index2018. 7,000 employees in the USA, Asiaand Europe, in a representative surveyof the population, were interviewed bya market research institute on behalf ofautomatica, leading trade fair forrobotics and automation.

When it comes to their own country,only about one in four employees isconvinced that training and develop-ment already plays a key role in theworkplace of the future. This new coll-aboration with robots is regarded bythe majority of all seven countries(average 68 per cent) as an opportunityto master higher-skilled work. Parti-cularly in China (86 per cent) and in theUSA (74 per cent), people expect thatrobotics automation will provide addedimpetus to further their vocationaltraining. The number of higher-skilledand better paid jobs will rise in the

future with the new human-robotteams – according to about one in twosurvey respondents in Germany, France,Italy, the UK and Japan. In China and theUnited States, as many as 80 per cent ofworkers presume this will be the case.

The maturity level in training anddevelopmentBased on school grades, the maturitylevel in training and development forthe digital workplace of the future hasso far fallen far short of employeeexpectations: with a grade of good orvery good, the current offering of one'sown employer is not even rated by onein four respondents (on average 23 percent).

Robotics and automation are verypopularThe companies can count on a positivebasic attitude among their employeesregarding robotics and automation. Inthe working world of the future,human-robot teams will improvemanufacturing by combining humantalents with the strengths of robotics,some 70 per cent believe. When peopleand machines work hand-in-handwithout a safety fence, people needtalents such as judgement and finemotor skills. The robot can score withpower and precision.

64 per cent of all workers from theseven countries want to use artificialintelligence (AI) for human-machinecollaboration. 73 per cent assume thatAI makes it easier for people to assignthe machine new tasks – for example,via voice command or touchpad.

automatica 2018 shows rapiddevelopment to work 4.0As the survey shows, employees wantmore consistent commitments frompoliticians, industry and science asregards training and development forwork 4.0, says Falk Senger, managingdirector of technology fairs at MesseMünchen. At the same time, the tech-nological development of intelligentautomation and robotics is advancingat a tremendous pace. All aspects of thisdevelopment were showcased at theautomatica 2018 in Munich from 19 to22 June.

automatica Trend Index 2018For the 2018 automatica Trend Index,7,000 employees, in the US, China, Japan,Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy,were interviewed in a representativesurvey of the population in January 2018on how robots and digitization arechanging the working world.

The role of man in the smart factoryat automatica 2018The special exhibition presented byVDMA Robotics + Automation ‘The Roleof Man in the Smart Factory’ dem-onstrates that people play a central rolein the digital factory. Trade visitors sawhow people and machines will interactin the future, how they will comm-unicate with each other, and howergonomic and versatile jobs will be.automatica is an international trade fairfor robotics and automation and thecentral meeting point for manu-facturers and users of integrated ass-embly solutions, robotics, industrialmachine vision and professional servicerobotics. automatica makes an impor-tant contribution to designing Work 4.0at places where people bear moreresponsibility than ever before.

white paper

Off-site construction: the relevance of full-scale testingby Dr Geoff Edgell, Director & Principal Consultant, Construction, Lucideon*

In recent years, Lucideon has seenlarge numbers of wall, floor androof systems passing through itslaboratories, usually for testing to

one European Technical ApprovalGuideline (ETAG) or another; thescopes are often rather unclear. Thefocus, however, is nearly always on thetesting of the panels and rarely wholeassemblages. The purpose of this paperis to show some examples where theresults from whole building tests havedemonstrated distinct improvements inperformance due to particular details orelements, or simply overall robustness,not evident from tests on sub-assemblies. The aim is to raise aware-ness that, despite there being estab-lished testing regimes for potentialoffsite or pre-manufactured approach-es, a test on the complete assemblagemay provide surprisingly beneficialresults

The ‘robust house’ testDuring the 1980s, a series of tests werecarried out on a typical domestic housebuilt in the Lucideon constructionlaboratory. The house was tested in avariety of ways and several partialfailures occurred. All of these wererepaired using materials drawn fromthe original batches; sufficient reserveswere supplied at the start to ensure thatthis was possible. The development ofthe use of trussed rafter roofs and ofautoclaved aerated concrete blocks forthe inner leaves of cavity walls leads tothe roof load being transferred into theweaker leaves of the front and rearwalls of houses which contain thepredominant openings. Traditionallythis load would have been transferredby purlins into the gable and partywalls, which contain few or noopenings, and which were, at the timewhen the rules were developed, made

from 9-inch solid brickwork. On thesegrounds alone, there was a need toconfirm the safety of the empiricalrules. Other developments, forexample, fewer chimney breasts, morepicture windows, and a greater use ofmetal connectors between vertical andhorizontal elements, all suggested anoverall reduction in robustness andhence the need for the work. Full-scaletesting was the only way to investigatethe safety of the house. Numericalmodelling was difficult, due to the largenumber of different materials, con-nections and interactions.The design of the house and the

selection of materials were carefullythought through. The timber floorspanned in opposite directions in thefront and rear of the building to enablethe front and rear walls to be testedindependently, with differing levels ofhorizontal restraint applied at first-


floor level. The house design is shownin Figure 1 and under construction inFigure 2.In the tests on the rear wall, vertical

load was applied by hydraulic jacks ateaves level through spreader beams

and a wall plate. The timber floor,which spanned parallel to the wall, wasconnected by steel restraint straps andnot loaded. In the tests on the frontwall, the timber floor was supported bythe front wall using joist hangers and

loaded by hydraulic jacks mounted onthe laboratory strong floor whichpulled a series of cables that passedthrough the floor and rested in a steelchannel acting as a spreader beam onthe chipboard decking (see Figure 3).In both series of tests, the effect of

using both reinforced concrete andsteel box section lintels at eaves levelwas investigated. During the tests,strains were measured using DEMECgauges at a number of locations, (seeFigure 4) and horizontal displacementsof the wall were measured at the centreof the wall and floor at a number oflocations underneath (see Figures 5 and

6). The results of these tests were veryencouraging, as failures tended to belocalized, for example, at lintel bear-ings and beneath joist hangers (seeFigure 7); these were not catastrophicfailures. The factor of safety againstrare single events such as floor or snowoverload was significant; the minimumachieved was 3.2.When the roof had been constructed,

wind suction tests were carried out onthe triangular section at the top of thegable wall. Instances of failure wereknown, in particular on exposed siteswhere a westerly wind could funnelbetween facing gable walls and causelocalized suction (see Figure 8). Theconcern in this case was whether thestrap connection at the verge wasadequate. A large triangular suction boxwas manufactured and supported onvertical columns some 75mm from thewall. A polyethylene seal was createdbetween the box and the wall, and thebox was depressurized by a fan via amanually operated valve. The testprogramme established that the plaster-board ceiling was very effective instiffening the roof structure andenabling the straps at ceiling level to beeffective. At a wind suction pressure of0.5kN/m2, the maximum lateral def-lection of the bottom chord of the

trussed rafter nearest the gable wallreduced from 3.5mm to 0.4mm afterinstalling the plasterboard. Higher up inthe roof structure, lateral deflections ofthe trussed rafters were reduced by25%. At the verge, the straps were notvery effective, but the revised strapdetail, described in a BRE DefectAction Sheet, whereby the strap passesbeneath the rafters and through theinner leaf, was highly effective.An overall, positive wind pressure

test on the whole of the gable wallproved that the ways in which thehouse resisted the load were complex.The front and rear walls acted as goodbuttresses, despite the large openings.The test was terminated when a lateralload of 3kN/m2 had been applied (seeFigure 9 overleaf).

In the final tests, the floor andceiling were loaded with kenteledge toserviceability levels; the cavity wallingbeneath the downstairs window open-ings in both front and rear walls wasrapidly removed. The load paths in thebuilding changed as a result of theremoval of the masonry, but a com-bination of arching action, canti-levering lintels and floor and wall tieaction supported the loads and therewas no further collapse (see Figures 10,11 and 12 overleaf).

Figure 1: Plan and elevation of test house

Figure 2: Test house under construction

Figure 3: Jack fixed to floor-mountedcantilever applying load to tensioncable

Figure 4: Location of DEMEC studs

Figure 5: Location of horizontal trans-ducers on front wall Figure 6: Deflected profile of front wall

Figure 7: Rotational failure of brick-work at eaves level following com-pressive failure of inner leaf lintelbearing

Figure 8: Large suction box adjacent togable wall


was drained by carefully designeddetails.Initial tests were carried out to in-

vestigate eccentricity of vertical loadingand the effect of simultaneous verticaland horizontal load on a two-storey-height wall (see Figures 13 and 14).Subsequently, as the design details

were developed, further laboratory testswere carried out, and eventually a pairof semi-detached single-leaf insulatedmasonry houses were built atHarriseahead, Stoke-on-Trent, andtested in situ (see Figure 15).From a testing point of view, much

of what was done, did not differgreatly from the ‘robust house’ work,except, of course, that testing on-sitemeant that reaction frames for airbagloading needed to be braced bydifferent means and, in this case,raking shores were used.The laboratory walls that represented

those of the house at Harriseahead were6m long and 5m high, and restrained byinternal return walls at wall-plate leveland by a shortened floor with chipboarddeck restrained by the test cubicle steelframe. Although restraint to the wallwas considerable for a laboratory‘mock up’, the deflections of the wallon the ‘real’ house (when tested) werereduced by 50%, albeit of relativelysmall values.

Timber-frame constructionA programme of test work was carriedout at BRE on a timber-framed housethat was similar to the overall positivewind pressure test on the gable wall ofthe masonry house described earlier. Inthis programme, the aim was to investi-gate the contribution to the stability androbustness of the house that was pro-vided by the brickwork cladding. Thelateral load test was carried out on thetimber frame with no cladding at all,both with and without loads, to simu-late occupancy.The loads were applied by weights

hanging from the floor joists andceiling ties of the trussed rafter roof.Snow load was simulated by layingsteel chains on the tiled roof.Subsequent testing took place in

stages as the brickwork was added tothe frame. Initially, the brickwork leafcladding was added to the gable, andafter curing, the house was retested.Similar tests were carried out when 2½brick-long returns were added to the

front and rear walls, when the brick-work was completed to first-floor level,and when completed to eaves level. Theprogramme covered timber-framehousing designs with a range of cladd-ing finishes, for example, brickwork tofirst floor would represent where theupper storey was clad in UPVC panels.The programme showed that theaddition of the gable-end brickworkreduced significantly the deformationof the building. In this case, somecantilever action of the brickwork,direct transfer of load into the base andhorizontal spanning, were felt to havemade a substantial difference to theperformance. The addition of the brick-work returns made a further significantdifference, with the deformationsreduced to 20% of the values withoutthe brickwork. The completed front andrear walls gave the best performance;however, this was not a huge improve-ment over that with the returns alone.

Medium-rise timber-frameconstructionA six-storey-high building clad inbrickwork was built at the large-scaletest facility at BRE Cardington (seeFigure 16). The effectiveness of thebrickwork in improving the shearstiffness of the building had beendemonstrated by dynamic testing. Afurther structural investigation in-volved the reconstruction of part of thebuilding, using the same materials anddesign at the Lucideon laboratory. Thisbuilding was tested using simulatedwind loading at various stages of

construction: timber frame alone,timber frame plus brickwork, andtimber frame plus brickwork andplasterboard. The results have empha-sized the great benefit to the stiffness ofthe structure provided by the brickworkand plasterboard. The reconstructionwas subsequently tested to destructionand this provided the confidence tosubsequently repeat the test at theCardington building, where a service-ability load of 1.5kn/m2 was appliedand no damage was observed.

ConclusionIn the past, for a variety of reasons,tests have been constructed on masonryand timber-frame houses and amedium-size timber-frame building. Ineach case, something was learnt aboutthe contribution of improved details,i.e., the strap connection in the ‘robusthouse’ and the surprising extent of thestiffening effect of plasterboard. Signi-ficantly reducing the deflections ofstructural walls is also possible.Similarly, the effect of the restraint

caused by a whole building in com-parison to that of a part assembly, how-ever rigidly restrained, is clear.All of these factors highlight the

advantages of testing whole con-structions with completed details overpart assemblages. This is relevant to theevaluation of prefabricated or pre-manufactured buildings where much ofthe independent testing work is carriedout according to guidance on panels orsub-assemblies. Manufacturers couldbenefit significantly from using the

more realistic information providedfrom testing whole constructions andaccurate assessment of robustness andembodied safety.

About LucideonLucideon is a leading international providerof materials development, testing andassurance.Through its offices and laboratories in the

UK, US and the Far East, Lucideonprovides materials and assurance expertiseto clients in a wide range of sectors,including healthcare, construction, ceramicsand power engineering. The company aims to improve the

competitive advantage and profitability ofits clients by providing them with theexpertise, accurate results and objective,innovative thinking that they need tooptimize their materials, products,processes, systems and businesses.

* ABOUT THE AUTHORDr Geoff Edgell, Director & PrincipalConsultant, Construction, LucideonGeoff has a degree in Civil Engineering, aPhD in ‘Unsteady Flow to Gravity Wells’and has served as a Visiting Professor in theSchool of Civil Engineering at theUniversity of Leeds, where he lectured onthe Masters Degree Course Deterioration ofMasonry Structures.During his 35-year career in the

construction and building industry, Geoffhas become a Chartered Engineer, aMember of the Institution of CivilEngineers, an Accredited Expert Witnessand is a past President of the BritishMasonry Society.Geoff began his profession as a lecturer

in Civil Engineering at the University ofLeeds, lecturing on Structural Analysis andSoil Mechanics. Joining Lucideon (formerlyCeram) in 1976, Geoff created the structuraltheory department based on his keeninterest in research and development. Sincethen he has been involved in many aspectsof masonry research and testing, and hasbroadened the scope of Lucideon on a widerange of construction materials.Heavily involved with BSI on both

Standards and Codes of Practice work,Geoff chairs the Standards CommitteeB/519 – ‘Masonry and Associated Testing’.In CEN, he usually leads the UK delegationto TC125 Masonry and TC250/SC6(Eurocode 6) and is proud of the fact that,under his chairmanship of TC125 WorkingGroup 4, 47 test methods have beenpublished as European-wide standards, noneof which failed a formal vote.Through a dedicated career in

construction, Geoff has been the author andpresenter of numerous papers relating tomasonry.

Single-leaf insulated masonrySingle-leaf insulated masonry was aconcept in which the external wall ofdomestic dwellings would be built ofstandard UK-format bricks withthermal insulation adhered to the insideface and internally lined with plaster-board. The concept is excellent in thesense that clay brickwork, which is agood structural material, was used toprovide the structure, whilst the high-grade insulation material was used toprovide the insulation. Rain penetrationwas an issue, and it was expected thatthe brickwork would allow some waterthrough. The insulation was of closed-cell structure and hence unaffecteditself. Use was made of the uneveninside face of the brickwork due to thetolerances on brick size and the thick-ness of the glue fixing the insulation;this provided a nominal cavity, which

Figure 9: Reaction boards used toresist overall position pressure appliedto gable wall

Figure 10: Horizontal load applied byjack to masonry inside house

Figure 11: Collapsed masonry betweenground-floor window openings

Figure 12: House after test

Figure 13: Two-storey-high wall testarrangement

Figure 14: Crack pattern on slim wallafter failure due to lateral load

Figure 15: Single-leaf masonry housesunder test

Figure 16: Six-storey-high timber-frame brick-clad building at BRE Cardington


construction construction

Construction economic briefing: Quarter one, 2018by Karl Horton, MCIOB, CPCostE, Technical Principal, Mott MacDonald

Welcome to a new featurethat focuses on the UKconstruction market. Aswell as providing an

overview of the status of the UKconstruction industry it will commenton the global macroeconomic trendsthat are exerting an influence upon it. The forecasts contained in this article

use a combination of published dataand forecasts produced using aneconometric model developed in-houseby Mott MacDonald’s cost intelligenceteam.

UK economic overviewSince the start of 2018, the UK econ-omy has somewhat stuttered, display-ing gross domestic product (GDP)growth of 0.1% in the first quarter of2018, which is the slowest rate ofgrowth since Q4 2012. This figure wasunrevised from the second estimate ofGDP, with the greatest contributionsbeing attributed to the services sector.

Set against this backdrop, the UKeconomy experienced annual growth of1.8% in 2017, which is 10 basis pointsless than the previous year. However,according to the Monetary PolicyCommittee’s (MPC) March 2018report, this figure is still above the1.75% average annual growth projectedby the MPC over the forecast period.Further to this, inflation as measured

by the consumer price index (CPI)softened to 2.5% in March 2018 afterpeaking above 3% in the latter monthsof 2017. This was expected as theshock of high import costs caused by aweak Sterling was alleviated. However,growth in the UK export market hasbenefitted from the weaker currencyand is expected to remain strong asdemand increases through a rapidlygrowing global economy. As pointedout in the latest publication from theMPC, CPI is expected to remain abovethe Bank of England’s 2% target rate inthe short term, yet will gradually ease

towards target by the end of the fore-cast period. It is for this reason that thebank rate remains unchanged at 0.5%.It is also worth noting that the UK is

experiencing record levels of employ-ment for people aged 16-64. In fact, itscurrent level of 75.6%, or 32.34 millionpeople, is the highest since comparablerecords began in 1971. This in turnmeans there is less slack in the econ-omy, which is essentially a measure ofthe quantity of unemployed resources.Bearing this in mind, it would beunnecessary for the MPC to endure anextended period of inflation abovetarget and instigate the Committee toease policy to prevent prolongedinflation, which could prove harmful tojobs and growth. Table 1 provides asnapshot of the latest economic fore-casts as published by HM Treasury

UK construction market overviewUK construction output contributes 7%of GDP. According to the latest stat-

istics published by the Office forNational Statistics (ONS):

l The total value of all work in the UKconstruction industry was £12,514

l All new work accounted for £8,083 million.

l Repair and maintenance attributed for the remaining £4,431 million.

Leading on from this, the latest ONSfigures identify that construction outputsustained its recent descent in the three-month on three-month series contract-ing by 2.7% in March 2018, the biggestfall since 2012. A 2.7% contractionequates to £1 billion and was the resultof falls across all but three sectors. Themain driving force was due to an 8.8%fall in new public housing, pushingconstruction output into its eleventhconsecutive period of decline for thisseries. However, a positive contributionwas displayed in the private industrialsector, which expanded by £19 million.Another eye-catching figure publish-

ed in ONS’ latest bulletin states that,compared with January 2017, con-struction output decreased by 4.9%, thethird consecutive quarter of contrac-tion. This is the first time this hashappened since May 2013 and waspredominantly caused by a downturn in

all new work, which was 5.2% lower inMarch 2018 than it was in March 2017.A slowdown in private commercialwork can be held accountable for thisslump.Other factors that could explain the

performance of the sector could be theslowdown in work due to the liquid-ation of Carillion and the ‘Beast fromthe East’ snowstorm. There is alsosome evidence from the ConstructionProducts Association that clients aremoving away from large contractors infavour of small and medium enter-prises, with 8% of these companiesreporting increased activity for Q12018 against only 5% of maincontractors experiencing the same. New orders also diminished signi-

ficantly in the final quarter of 2017,though this was expected as severalhigh-value orders were awarded forHigh Speed 2 in Q3. However, despitethis fall, total orders in 2017 increasedby 4.3% to £334 million, the highesttotal since 2013.Change in construction company

revenues from Q4 2017 to Q1 2018:

l 56% of firms reported zero or negative growth.

l As a total this represents a net decrease in value of -£1,360m.

Latest figures for 2017 show that thetop 100 UK contractors achieved acombined turnover of £74,287.8m.However, profits only totalled£1,108.9m before tax, a margin of just1.5%.

Construction marketRegional variationsThe map overleaf shows regionaloutput, while the chart overleaf showshow this is split by sector.

Inflation: tender pricesConstruction inflation on the rise?A key area of concern for the con-struction industry is the rebound in fueland energy costs. Brent Crude Oil hasrebounded from its 2016 low of lessthan US$30 per barrel and is currentlyhovering around US$70 per barrel. Rising input costs have seen margins

begin to squeeze, with 39% of maincontractors reporting a fall in marginsduring Q1 2018 while 87% saw theirinput costs increase over the sameperiod. This is also reflected in thetender market with the Building CostInformation Service (BCIS) forecastinga reduction, quarter on quarter, of 1.2%in the All-In Tender Price Index. The Table on page 19 shows Mott

MacDonald’s tender price index (TPI)forecast for the UK, along with theforecast from the BCIS and otherconsultants where available. The Tablebelow that shows TPI forecasts forLondon.

Acknowledgements: data sourcesThis briefing document uses data from,Table 1: HM Treasury forecasts

Financial performance of UKcontractors 2017 (Top 100 firms byturnover):


construction construction

or has been informed by, the followingsources:Office for National Statistics Building Cost Information ServiceHM TreasuryThe Bank of EnglandVarious published accounts for maincontractors

Contact for further information

Karl Horton, MCIOB, CPCostE,Technical Principal, Mott MacDonald

This document was produced by MottMacDonald’s Cost Intelligence Team toprovide an insight into the UK economyand construction market; it is for generalinformation only and Mott MacDonalddoes not make any warranty, express orimplied, or assume any liability withrespect to the use of the information ormethods contained herein.

© 2018. This document is subject tocopyright and may not be reproducedwithout permission of Mott MacDonald.

Construction output (all work)

Regional output by sector

ARTICLES WANTEDIf you have a technical paper, article or opinion piece that you think may be of interest to our

members, please email the Editor, Clive Wellings, via [email protected], with a précis.


technical paper technical paper

Active forecasting – process improvementby Anastasia Ball*

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT ASPART OF THE IMPLEMENTATIONPROCESSFew things work perfectly from thestart. Regardless of how much thoughtand effort is put into developing aprocess, the implementation team isbound to encounter unforeseen chall-enges along the way. Experiencesdrawn from many projects prove thatthe process outcome can only be seenafter its launch. The goal of the projectmanagement team is to closely monitorhow things are going, to ensure theprocess is performing to expectations,and seek ways to improve it.The importance of an efficient

process is obvious and should be apriority of any business. Processes thatdon’t work result in customers’ com-plaints, colleague frustration, rework,missed deadlines, wasted time andresources, leading to poor productivityand an increase in cost. Consolidation of improvements

while continuing the implementationprocess can be problematic but, withstructure, is achievable. As with anyother process it requires a structuredapproach:

l Step 1 Collect feedback from all participants

l Step 2 Analyze feedbackl Step 3 Develop a proposal for improvements

l Step 4 Obtain necessary approvalsl Step 5 Implement improvements.

Feedback of the active forecastingprocess was collected in two ways:passive and active. Passive feedbackwas received through informal com-ments on the process or ad-hoc requestsfor changes. Active feedback wasobtained by a designated process leadervia discussions with process partici-pants. The latter can be done via formallessons learnt sessions or informally byapproaching team members with ques-tions. The author would like to high-

light the importance of involving notonly senior project members but alsojunior staff. Their enthusiasm and freshviews quite often prove to be asvaluable as a view of an experiencedprofessional.Feedback analysis, leading to

change, was a continuous process thatwas performed by the author (referredto as Forecast Leader – FL). Not allproposed changes lead to processredesign due to various constraints(financial, practical, ethical, etc.).Proposed changes were appraised,validated and, if valid, approved by theprocess owner and appropriate spon-sors, then incorporated into the process.

ACTIVE FORECASTING PROCESSIMPROVEMENTSImplementation of active forecastingwas a well-thought-through processbased on the latest best practices. Itsimplementation was successful andreceived positive feedback from projectsenior management. The process, how-ever, was improved after its launch,based on the analysis of its efficiencyand stakeholders’ feedback. The pro-cess and methods as they stand now aredescribed in the previous articles in thisseries. Below is the analysis ofimprovements that led to it (Figure 1).

Forecasting activities close tocompletionExperience shows that, in the early

stages of work, when it is difficult tovisualize the whole scope, forecastingtools give a reliable result. However, inthe final stages, management’s andengineering leads’ experience (plansfor completion and lay-off schedules)works better (Clark and Lorenzoni,1985). Extrapolation of selected metrics

(productivity factor, expenditure rate,etc.) is a good method, which takes intoaccount a certain portion of unknownfactors at the moment of forecasting.When an activity reaches its final stage,forecasting should be mostly based onthe experienced engineering lead/project manager’s opinion. Usingmetrics to date would be wrong, as thelast 10% of the job do not follow thesame pattern as the first phases ofwork. Typically it takes more time andeffort to achieve 1% complete afterreaching 85-90% complete. It isdifficult to estimate the exact amount ofeffort for the last 10% upfront, whichleads to a productivity drop later on(more spent than earned). There may bevarious reasons for why the last 10%take longer (and this is a topic of apaper in itself). For example, this couldbe due to unexpected delays inapproval of the final deliverables.

Potential changes analysis The first thing one should do whenanalyzing project growth is to look atthe unapproved variations and whether

they have been accounted for in theforecast. As described in the article Active

forecasting, potential change makes alarge portion of the gap between EAC(estimate at completion) and currentbudget. In a reporting cycle some vari-ances will be approved, some will berejected and the new ones will beraised. Analysis of the change move inthe period is essential to stay in controlof the forecast and explain its growth. Documentation of this process has

been an improvement to the originalprocedure. An APM (Area ProjectManager) would go through a potentialchange log and mark which variationshave been excluded from the forecastednumbers. In most cases, exceptionswere related to lack of details orjustification.

Forecast presentationForecast presentation has been mod-ified to bring focus on the gap analysis(between approved budget and estimateat completion (EAC) and productivityprofile, as shown in the article ‘Activeforecasting’.

Review cycle between FL and APMs An additional stage of review wasadded to inform engineering managersabout the APM forecast and give themopportunity to revise it with APMs.Although each APM reviewed andfinalized the forecast for their area, itwas important to talk through thenumbers in a meeting which wouldinvolve the AMP, Forecast Lead andArea Planner. This helped, not only torefine the presented numbers, but alsoto gather feedback on the process andrevisit the methodology used.

Review cycle between FL andengineering managersA new review cycle has been added torun an APM forecast by engineeringmanagers who are responsible for themanpower plan (MPP) update. Thisstep provided a link between the projectmanagement group and the projectengineering group, which was missing.Figure 2 (overleaf) s a demonstration

of how the implemented processchanged (yellow highlighted boxes)

following post-implementation review.

WHY PROCESS IMPLEMENTATIONCAN FAIL Reasons why process implementationcan fail is a subject for further investi-gation and could easily be a paper in itsown. The author would only like todescribe the following seven examplesthat could affect process implemen-tation, as highlighted in ExploringStrategy by Gerry Johnson et al.(2010).

Lack of communication whiledeveloping the process Engagement with the process stake-holders and users upfront while dev-elopment is ongoing is a must. Projectcontext, key process players’ expect-ations and capabilities, their routineand schedules, should be analyzed andtaken into account.

Lack of training There is an understanding that the newprocess and methods are quickly under-stood and adopted. However simple thechanges are, they should be followedby multiple training and, in most cases,follow-up trainings, to ensure that theprocesses are understood.

Loss of focus A new process is often promoted byexecutive and senior management, andby training programmes and present-ations. However, the risk is that, afterthe process is launched, the focus canbe shifted to new processes running inthe company. It is essential that newroutine is reinforced by senior manage-ment to maintain the original intentionof the change.

Reinterpretation There is a risk that the attempted newprocess or change becomes reinter-preted according to the old methods.Active forecasting could be a goodexample while, although following thenew process, the old forecastingmethods are applied to calculate forfinal estimate at completion (EAC).

Disconnectedness People affected by change might not

see that the new process is connected totheir reality and only follow the newchange on paper. There is a risk that anew process is designed without takinginto consideration the actual require-ments to complete the new deliver-ables. It could be that the timing of thenew routine overlaps with other urgentdeliverables, or there is a lack ofresources to implement the change.

Lack of engagement Monitoring how process stakeholdersrespond to a change and cope with thenew routine is an important step inmanaging a new process, leading to agood process stabilization and processimprovement. Lack of engagement canlead to slipping to the old routine orsuperficial compliance.

Lack of comprehensionPeople affected by the new routine donot see the importance of the outcome.The result is a loss of focus and poorquality of deliverables.

Failure to improve the processConsolidating improvements, but alsocontinuing the process of change, is amust. As described earlier in thissection, very few processes workperfectly from the start and processoutcome can only be seen after itbegan.

CONCLUSIONSl Process improvement is the last stepof process implementation. Its purpose is to find and close gaps in the originally-designed process. Gathering feedback on the process plays a key role in its improvement and should be taken seriously.

l Among many factors that could affect initially designed process, special attention should be paid to training, correct interpretation of theprocess, engagement with the affected groups and constant focus on the change.

Bibliography• Forrest D. Clark and Lorenzoni A. B.(1985). Applied Cost Engineering. 2nded. New York: Marcel Dekker.• Marsh P.D.V. (1981). Contracting for

Figure 1: Active forecasting process improvement


technical paper technical paper

Engineering and ConstructionProjects.2nd ed. Hants (England):Gower Publishing Company Limited.• Lukas J. A. Earned Value Analysis –Why It Doesn’t Work. (2008). TheAssociation of the Advancement of CostEngineering (AACE) InternationalTransactions• Sheard S. A. (2003). ‘ProcessImplementation’. INCOSE InternationalSymposium. Volume 13, pp. 1114-1124.Washington DC.• Mullins J. (2010). The New BusinessRoad Test. 3rd ed. London: FinancialTimes Prentice Hall.• Johnson G., Scholes K. andWhittington R. (2011). ExploringStrategy. 9th ed. London: FinancialTimes Prentice Hall.• The Joint Development Board (TheRoyal Institution of CharteredSurveyors). (1997). IndustrialEngineering Projects. 1st ed. New York:Taylor & Francis.• AACE International. (2012). Skills &Knowledge of Cost Engineering. 5th ed.Morgantown, WV: AACE International.• The Association of Cost Engineers.Cost Engineering Terminology.Sandbach (England): The Association ofCost Engineers.

• Champy J. and Hammer M. (1995).Reengineering the Corporation: aManifesto for Business Revolution. 9thed. London: Nicholas Brealy. • ‘Strategy Tools’. www.mindtools.com• Association of Project Management.(2008). Earned Value Management.APM Guideline. 1st ed. PrincesRisborough (England): Association ofProject Management.• Bent J. A., Humphreys K. K. (1996).Effective Project Management throughApplied Cost Engineering. 1st ed. NewYork: Marcel Dekker• Evans J. M. (2015). ‘How to PreventCorruption of Earned Value’. ProjectControl Professional. Vol. 53 No. 5September 2015 pp. 9–14 and Vol. 53No. 6 November 2015 pp.18–23.Sandbach (England): The Association ofCost Engineers.• Waters D. (2011). QuantitativeMethods for Business. 5th ed. London:Addison-Wesley.• Oberlender G.D. (2000). ProjectManagement for Engineering andConstruction. 2nd ed. USA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

* Anastasia Ball, MACostE, CPCostE,ICECA, was born in Moscow, USSR,

Figure 2: Process following post-implementation review

where she read Geological Sciences inLomonosov Moscow State University.She worked in Moscow as a planner,before transferring to London. From thispoint Anastasia worked withWorleyParsons on several projects andin corporate roles, in cost, beforebecoming Project Controls Manager. To help her career progression,

Anastasia completed NVQ3 and QCF5qualifications and she has been recentlyadmitted to the status of CertifiedProfessional Cost Engineer.

news & events

International trade award for G&PAutomotive and aerospace qualitymanagement experts G&P, which has itsglobal headquarters at Fort Dunlop,Birmingham, has won the InternationalTrade Award at the prestigious WestMidlands Business Masters 2018. It wasthe first time that G&P entered the WestMidlands Business Masters Awards,where it was also a finalist in the Large

Business and Innovation categories.G&P works with many of the world’s

leading vehicle manufacturers and theirkey suppliers at manufacturing facili-ties around the globe. It is a transferringthis expertise and experience into theaerospace industry, which shares manysimilar complex supply-chain issues.Accepting the award, Julian Dawes,

UK Managing Director at G&P, said:‘This is a fantastic achievement by G&Pas there was some very strong com-petition from other leading businessesacross the West Midlands region.‘It is also a real accomplishment that

G&P was recognised for its outstandingsuccess in other areas such as largebusiness and innovation, proving thatG&P is making a real, and positive,difference to the West Midlands region.’ G&P’s overseas expansion has been

possible due to the success of its award-winning Quality Excellence Modelwhich has helped the company’s auto-motive and aerospace manufacturingcustomers reduce their levels of wasteby more than £1.4bn in 2017 alone. As aresult the company has expanded signi-ficantly and now employs 1,400 peoplearound the world. www.gpqm.com


Technical abstractsTechnical abstracts – brief

particulars of the contents

of journals received by

ACostE and available

for loan from the

Sandbach office

CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYORPublished by the Chartered Institutionof Civil Engineering Surveyors

February 2018Main articles include: Surveying the crane rail replacementat the Port of Brisbane – DanielCoates, MCInstCES, MRICS, MSSSi,Client Manager – Survey, RPS. Port ofBrisbane and McMahons Servicescommissioned RPS as part of anongoing project to replace the cranerails for ship-to-shore gantry cranes onWharf 4 at the Port of Brisbane. Thiscritical project at Queensland’s largestmulti-cargo port facility involved theremoval of existing rail lengths andreplacement with new rails inpredetermined stages, totalling over270m in length. Work on the projectwas scheduled to occur monthly, inbrief shutdowns of one week at a time,so as not to disrupt shippingoperations. The project wasundertaken in four stages of varyingprogressive lengths.How UAS is changing the world ofrail surveying – Tom Wren, MRICS,UAV Manager, Plowman Craven.Network Rail’s much-publicisedcommitment to the creation of a‘digital railway` is a very ambitiousand necessary step for the future ofour national rail infrastructure. But itis a momentous challenge given the20,000 miles of track and 40,000structures that demand continualinspection, monitoring andmaintenance. Providing Network Railwith highly accurate survey data thatcan be easily integrated in existingworkflows – as well as informingfuture planning – is therefore a vital

link in service chain. The trouble isthat capturing this valuable data is alabour-intensive and challengingbusiness.

ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYPublished by The Institution ofEngineering & Technology

Vol. 13, Issue 2, March 2018As the Earth warms, the ice caps aremelting and the sea level is rising.This is not good news if you live onthe coast, as millions of people roundthe world do. What are we going to doabout it? High Seas & Low Lands –Tim Fryer. One effect of rising worldtemperatures is that water levels arealso rising, with potentially disastrouseffects for some low-lying regions.That’s leading many countries toconsider whether it’s feasible toprotect their seaboards with walls orbarriers. It’s becoming an urgentconcern, even alongside the currentpolitical will around the globe to slowthe warming by cutting carbonemissions. Even with a radical changein human behaviour, theIntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), which includes morethan 1,300 scientists from around theworld, forecasts a temperature rise of1.4 to 5.6°C over the next century.

THE CHEMICAL ENGINEERPublished by the Institute of ChemicalEngineers

Issue 921 – March 2018How chemical engineering developedin Nigeria ¬¬– John Erinne & TonyOgbuigwe, Matrix Petro-Chem &Pejad Nigeria. The history of chemicalengineering in Nigeria dates back tothe late 1950s when the first Nigeriansgraduated from universities in the UKand US. But it wasn’t until a decadelater, in the late 1960s, that a steadystream of young Nigerian chemicalengineers graduating from UK and USuniversities began to return to thecountry. Prior to this, chemicalengineering was scarcely known orunderstood in the country. At best it

was considered to be appliedchemistry and physics, or in othersituations, a cross between chemistryand mechanical engineering.A solution to the world’s plasticproblem could be right under our feet– Toby McCartney, MacRebur CEO,speaks to Neil Clark. Toby McCartneyfirst saw these makeshift road repairswhile undertaking charity work inIndia, and returned to the UK inspiredto do something about the holes in theasphalt outside his house. This was theinception of MacRebur, a companytackling two world problems with asimple solution. ‘We’re taking thewaste plastics that we have a problemwith – we call it the plastic epidemic –and we’re putting that into an asphaltmix to replace part of the oil-basedproduct in the road,’ says McCartney.‘And the results are we get a muchstronger, longer-lasting road.’Now is the time to invest in skills –Luke Johnson, Senior Cost Engineer,TSC Simulations. The widening skillsgap and ageing workforce is a hotly-debated topic in the world ofengineering and chemical engineering.This has become ever more apparent,with many industries being forced tolook at innovative ways to tackle theproblem. The landscape and needs ofthese sectors are changing quickly,highlighting the need for quick andeffective training, and for skills to beimproved and invested in via enhancedtraining methods using emergingtechnologies. It is also important thatthese skills change to meet the needsof current and emerging industries.

The Association extends a warm welcome to the following members, whohave recently been elected by the Membership Admissions Committeenew members

ROBERT WILLIAMS – 6838 – FELLOWPrinciple Cost Control Engineer – MoDDE&S, Barrow-in-Furness

DARREN PHILIP STALKER – 6839 –MEMBERDirector/Commercial Consultant – A.Lamb Associates Limited, Kirkby Lonsdale

MERVIN MCMINN – 6840 – MEMBERTechnical Programme Manager –Radioactive Waste Management Limited,Warrington

AHMED SALEH – 6841 – STUDENT

THUSHITHAN VASANTHAKUMAR – 6842 –MEMBERQuantity Surveyor/Cost Estimator –Highgate Interiors LLC, Dubai

PAUL VOON HIN CHONG – 6843 –MEMBERSenior Quantity Surveyor – MottMacDonald, Liverpool

PHILIP JENKINS BUCKLEY – 6844 –MEMBEROperations Estimator – MarshallAerospace and Defence Group,Cambridge

NICHOLAS MARK MARRS – 6845 –MEMBERCommercial Manager – NMM AssociatesLtd, Flintshire

RICHARD COLIN THOMAS – 6846 –MEMBERSenior Cost Engineer – DE&S/MoD – Bristol

CHLOE ANN PASCOE – 6847 – STUDENT

ANDREW SUTCLIFFE – 6848 – MEMBERContracts Manager – Fluor Kuwait K.S.C,Kuwait

MALCOLM EDWARD WRENNALL – 6849 –MEMBERCost Control Engineer – DE&S Air Domain,Manchester

GRAEME WARNER – 6850 – MEMBERCost Engineer – DE&S/Ships (CAG), Rosyth

PAUL WILLIAM JOHN HEANEY – 6851 –MEMBERSenior Bid Coordinator – Polar (NE) Ltd,North Yorkshire

ATIF ALI – 6852 – MEMBERSenior Quantity Surveyor – MottMacDonald, Glasgow

TIN YAU WONG – 6853 – MEMBERSenior Estimator – Marshall Aerospaceand Defence, Cambridge

JAMIE NICHOLAS TIMOTHY PECK – 6854 –GRADUATECost Intelligence Assistant – MottMacDonald, Liverpool

ABBIE HANNAH – 6855 – STUDENT

DAVID ROGER LEIGHTON – 6856 –MEMBEREstimating Manager – Qinetiq,Farnborough

REINSTATEDSHAMRAZ RAZZAQ – 5627 – MEMBERManagement Consultant in CostEngineering, Dex Consulting Ltd, Hook

LAIM AIK QUAH – 4026 – MEMBERSenior Manager Contracts & Commercial,Gamuda Engineering SDN BHD, Malaysia

UPGRADEDRICHARD ROBINSON – 6451 – FELLOWTechnical Director for Estimating/AccountLeader for Environment & Water, MottMacDonald, London

Send yournews to the

EditorEmail

[email protected] Contact: David Singh, Advertising Manager, 7 Priory Gardens, Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2PZTelephone: 020 8979 9858 Mobile: 07939 551929 Email: [email protected]

Advertising ratesSize 1 insertion 3 insertions 6 insertionsCover page mono £660 £605 £550Page mono £440 £385 £360Half page mono £275 £220 £195Quarter page mono £165 £145 £120Colour rates: Full colour + £165; 2 colour: + £110Inserts: prices on application

Project Control PROFESSIONAL (formerly The Cost Engineer) is the official journal of the Association of CostEngineers. It is distributed six times a year to all members of the Association. The journal focuses on allaspects of the cost engineering profession, encompassing: cost estimating, planning and scheduling,resource and cost control, value engineering, risk management and all the disciplines which can affectproject control and performance. These areas are rapidly expanding and are developing beyond thetraditional sectors of construction and petrochemicals to become well established within the manufacturingand service industries.

Editorial policy is to provide readers with authoritative information to keep them up to date with the latestissues affecting the discipline, and to provide case studies and examples illustrating best practice methods. This professional journal will ensure a high-profile business presence to all advertisers.

Project Control PROFESSIONALAdvertise in Project Control PROFESSIONAL


diary of eventsMARCHAssociation of Cost EngineersThursday 7th – 2.30 pmCouncil Meeting

MAYAssociation of Cost EngineersThursday 2nd – 2.30 pmCouncil Meeting

International Federation ofSurveyors (FIG)FIG Working Week 2019Vietnam

JUNEAACE InternationalSunday 16th to Wednesday 19th 63rd Annual MeetingSheraton Centre, New Orleans,Louisiana, USA

ICEC/AAQS/Ghana Institute ofSurveyors (GhIS)12th ICEC World Congress (26th International Cost EngineeringCongress), Accra, Ghana

JUNEAACE InternationalSunday 24th to Wednesday 27th62nd Annual Meeting, Manchester Grand Hyatt, San Diego,California, USA

JULYAssociation of Cost EngineersThursday 5th– 2.30 pmCouncil MeetingOffices of Mott MacDonald, 10 Fleet Place, London EC4M 7RB

ACostE Southern RegionEvening Walking Tour in LondonDetails to be confirmed

OCTOBERAssociation of Cost EngineersThursday 4th– 2.30 pmCouncil MeetingOffices of ACostE, Sandbach

NOVEMBERICEC/PAQS/Australian Institute ofQuantity Surveyors (AIQS)Thursday 15th & Friday 16thICEC Council MeetingSaturday 17thPAQS Board MeetingSunday 18th to Tuesday 20th11th ICEC World Congress (25thInternational Cost EngineeringCongress)/22nd PAQS AnnualMeetingInternational Convention Centre,Sydney, Australia

ACostE Southern RegionTechnical MeetingDetails to be confirmed

DECEMBERAssociation of Cost EngineersThursday 6th – 2.30 pmCouncil MeetingOffices of Mott MacDonald, 10 Fleet Place, London EC4M 7RB

JANUARYAssociation of Cost EngineersThursday 3rd – 2.30 pmCouncil Meeting

Reminder re use of ACostE designationMembers who resign fromthe Association or whosemembership has lapsed or

has been withdrawnbecause of non-payment of

subscriptions are notentitled to continue to usemembership designationsafter their name or in anyother manner which couldsuggest that they are still amember of the Association.

Membership Certificatesshould be returned to our

Sandbach office ifmembership of the

Association ceases, forwhatever reason.2020

2018

2019

Association Council DIRECTORSAngela Pammenter – PresidentAlan Barltrop – Immediate Past PresidentAlec Ray – Vice-President, International

ChairmanRoger Carter – Treasurer, The Assessment

Service Centre Contracts & FinanceVernon Thompson – Admissions ChairmanJohn Ward – Company Secretary,

The Assessment Service Centre OperationsAlan Jones – Accreditation ChairmanAnil Godhawale – Marketing ChairmanRichard RobinsonJames StudmanFred Houghton

HONORARY VICE PRESIDENTRaj Roy

CO-OPTED MEMBERSStephen Allen – Southern Region ChairmanRoger Batten – Engineering CommitteeAnthony DaileyJames Dyson – Engineering Manufacturing

ChairmanShane ForthNigel Hibberd

For your current information the Councilare actively engaged in the following forthe Association.

Administration, Finance, Admissions,Regions, Cost Engineering, Planning,Engineering Registration, IT and Website,Certification, Engineering Manufacture,Legal and Commercial, Liaison withexternal bodies, Publications, CommercialContract, Benchmarking, Life-CycleCosting, Risk & Opportunity Management,Bibliography, ICEC, QCFs, CostControl/Management, Building for theFuture, Fellowship

If you, as a Member of the Association,wish to contribute or liaise with a CouncilMember on any of the above subjects,please do so initially through our headoffice staff, who will provide you with thenecessary contact.

Andrew LangridgeDavid Langton – The Assessment Service

CentreDavid ReussDale Shermon – SCAF RepresentativePhilip Snowden – BAE Systems Company

RepresentativeRod Whiting – South West Region Chairman

ELECTED MEMBERSMichael BallRoy HedgerMaisie JasperChristine McLeanDebbie RyePhilip Thompson

HEAD OFFICE STAFFVanessa Tattersall – ACostE AdministratorHelen Jackson – ACostE/TASC FinanceSophie Jackson – ACostE/Accreditation

Administrator

ICEC news

Roger Batten, MBE,ICEC spokesman for the Association

For updated eventsplease go to

www.acoste.org.uk ‘Events’

ARTICLESWANTED

If you have a technical paper,

article or opinion piece that you

think may be of interest to our

members, please email the Editor,

Clive Wellings, via

[email protected]

with a précis.

Retired membership rateAssociation Members are

reminded that the Byelaws 18 &19 detail the criteria for a RetiredMember. Anyone who is in receiptof payments from an employer orwho is self-employed shall not be

entitled to the reducedmembership rate.

ICEC have a new AdministrationManager – Kirsty-Lee Gardiner.Kirsty has over 10 years’experience as an ExecutiveAssistant and has a seasonedadministration background withstrong organization and stakeholderexperience. This has includedconsiderable experience in both theFinance and Property Developmentsectors. She can be contacted viaher AIQS email address [email protected] holds a global Congress

and Council Meeting every twoyears. The first International CostEngineering Congress was held inMontreal, Quebec, Canada in 1971.Since 1972 there has been an ICECCongress every second year. Themost recent Congress was hosted bythe Instituto Brasiliero deEngenhario de Custos (IBEC) andwas held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,in October 2016.ICEC also holds annual regional

meetings in each of the four ICECregions (Region 1 – North and SouthAmerica, Region 2 – Europe and thenear East, Region 3 – Africa andRegion 4 – Asia/Pacific). The mostrecent Region 2 meeting was hostedby the Association and was held inLondon in November 2017. A reporton this meeting was included in theMarch issue of this journal.ICEC encourages the conduct and

promotion of other regional andworldwide congresses, meetings,forums and seminars.Registration is now open for the

2018 11th ICEC World Congress(the 25th International CostEngineering Congress). Details forregistration and ‘early bird’ rates can be found on the Congresswebsite at:https://icecpaqs2018.com/registrationThis Congress is being hosted by

the Australian Institute of QuantitySurveyors (AIQS), at theInternational Convention Centre in

Sydney, Australia, from Thursday 15 to Tuesday 20 November 2018and will be combined with thePacific Association of QuantitySurveyors (PAQS) 22nd AnnualMeeting. The ICEC–PAQSConference 2018 ProgrammeOverview has been published. Thetheme for this congress is‘Grassroots to Concrete Jungle –Dynamics in the Built Environment’and also features the 3rdInternational QS BIM Conference.The 2020 12th ICEC World

Congress (the 26th InternationalCost Engineering Congress) will behosted by the Ghana Institution ofSurveyors Quantity SurveyorsDivision (GhIS).Minutes of past meetings and

details of future meetings, as wellas ICEC’s International RoundupNews, are all available on the ICECwebsite at www.ICostE.org.

IndustrialEngineeringProjects

Practice andProcedures forCapital Projectsin the Engineering,Manufacturingand ProcessIndustries

By The Joint Development Board

The Joint Development Board is sponsored by the Royal Institution of CharteredSurveyors and the Association of Cost Engineers.

This handbook has been compiled to provide a clear, basic understanding of thecommercial, contractual and statutory matters which affect the life of an engineeringproject, from feasibility, through commissioning, to operation.

Practising engineers will find this an invaluable guide to procedures for capital projects.Students will also benefit from its practical advice, based on many years of experience.

Price: ACostE Members £105 + p&p. Non-Members £135 + p&p.

To order a copy please contact the ACostE Administration Office:Telephone: 01270 764798Email: [email protected]

Project Control PROFESSIONAL - AcostE...4 Project Control Professional July 2018 Dear Colleagues,...

Documents

Transcript of Project Control PROFESSIONAL - AcostE...4 Project Control Professional July 2018 Dear Colleagues,...