2018Case7Jacobs

33 L EAN C ONSTRUCTION I RELAND A NNUAL B OOK OF C ASES 2018 be seen in manufacturing sites. These meetings were designed to feed information into higher level management reporting meetings, and the visual aids were designed in such a way that they contain information that is relevant through the reporting structures without the need to be modified. Figure 3. Project Status Boards Updated Weekly. The visual aids cover all aspects of engineering design and project execution, including general items such as Cost, Safety and EHS, and Quality, in addition to more specific aids such as compliance metrics, training metrics, project action registers, adherence to planned vs action targets. Visual aids are electronical ly generated and are placed on whiteboards located in dedicated ‘whiteboard’ areas of meeting rooms or open corridors. The information in the visual aids is often manually updated during the week as the expectation is that the information is maintained ‘live’. Regular reporting meetings are held at the whiteboard area, and a high level of accountability is placed on the owners of the visual aids to provide an update at those meetings. One of the main purposes of the ESP team is to provide engineering solutions for the Client, whether to solve problems or to make improvements. Multiple projects are often simultaneously executed. As well as developing visual aids to track metrics, the ESP team generated a standardised visual aid to provide information about the status of each individual current project. Each project reports on the same information, ranging from overall status, planned vs actual cost, schedule, construction status, start-up status, and risk. These visual aids clearly define those responsible and the target completion dates. The visual aid provides a very clear and easy way of representing all of this information in a concise and systematic manner. These visual aids provide proven value-add (VA) to the Client and drive cost savings and continuous improvement. The placement of the visual aids at easily accessible locations, along with the regular reporting meeting format, encourages responsibility and accountability of project deliverables. Metrics clearly show project status and continuously challenge the ESP team to meet and better their objectives. Compared to the traditional less-structured approach of reporting information, these Lean tools and techniques minimise unnecessary repetition of information reported across organisations and focus the team to report on information that is relevant to the Client. This Lean journey started with a meeting between the leaders of both the engineering firm and the Client site to define and agree the metrics and KPIs against which the ESP team would be assessed. The Client site had previously def ined the KPIs that i t repor ts up through i ts own organisation structure, and these formed an initial starting point for the exercise to define the new metrics and KPIs. Both firms wanted the ESP team’s KPIs and metrics to be aligned with the site KPIs, to show clearly the links and relationships of the KPIs, and to support the information flow from the ESP team to Client site as well as to the site management and beyond. For example, KPIs and metrics that were related to the site quality metrics such as number of overdue CAPAs (Corrective Action Preventative Action) or change control were grouped with the site quality metrics. Similarly, safety metrics for the ESP team were also listed with the site safety metrics. Occasionally, and where it made sense, the ESP team provided information that fed into the site KPIs. This approach provided an aligned and well- defined structure for the reporting of the ESP team KPIs. The standard now is for KPIs and metrics to be presented on a whiteboard using standardised templates in which each ESP KPI is placed beneath its parent site KPI, clearly showing the links and relationships. Once the KPIs and metrics had been agreed, standardised visual aids and templates were developed and designed to measure the performance of the ESP team against the KPIs. The requirement for the visual aids to be clear, concise, and have a simple reporting structure was identified. Both firms wanted the visual aids standardised on the same reporting styles and to ensure consistency across the various visual aid templates was maintained. The visual aid tools that were selected included simple traffic lights and charts to indicate current actual status against pre-defined categories, and detailed both actual and forecast information. A designated owner for each of the visual aids was identified – the owner being responsible for the KPI and for maintaining and updating the information shown on the visual aid. It is also the owner’s responsibility to bring the updated visual aid to the relevant reporting meetings, whether that be a daily whiteboard meeting or a weekly performance or operations meetings, as appropriate. In addition to KPIs and metrics, the use of A3s was promoted to report on individual project information. The A3s provide a structured approach to representing the current status of each project, but also planned versus actual cost, schedule, construction status, start-up status, and risk. Each project reports information using the same A3 template which focuses the reporting meetings onto these standardised categories. KPI and metric reporting meeting structures were also defined at the outset by the ESP and Client team. Similar to what you can expect of an organisation chart, the meeting structure defined which meetings fed information into parent meetings so as to generate a clear line of communication. Standardised terms of references for each of the meetings were generated which indicated the purpose of the meeting, defined meeting outputs, attendees, and frequency. Meeting leaders and owners were also defined in the terms of reference, which al so provided clear def ini t ions of responsibility. Meeting calendars were established, and efforts were made to ensure that the ESP team meetings aligned in terms of timing with the Client reporting meetings. High expectations were placed on team members to attend the reporting meetings or send a delegate, and meeting attendees were required to bring with them the required information. This definition and agreement on responsibilities was critical to the success of the communication and flow of information through the meeting structures. Figure 4. Team & Information Alignment