Presentation to:

AACEI Houston Gulf Coast Section

Oil and Gas
Benchmarking
Construction Industry Institute (CII)
The University of Texas at Austin
January 15, 2008

Stephen P. Mulva, Ph.D.
Outline
CII and its Benchmarking Program
CII Benchmarking Database
Uses for Benchmarking
Metrics
Downstream Oil and Gas
Productivity
Analysis and Reporting
Questions
Construction Industry Institute
A consortium of leading owners,
contractors, suppliers, and academia
working to improve the constructed project
and the capital facility delivery process.
CII Mission
CII Strategic
Plan
January 2005
Add value for members by enhancing the
business effectiveness and sustainability
of the capital facility life cycle through CII
research, related initiatives, and industry
alliances.
Expand the global competitive advantage
realized through active involvement and
effective use of research findings,
including CII Best Practices.
Owner Members
3M
Abbott
The AES Corporation
Air Products and Chemicals
Alcoa
Amgen
Anheuser-Busch
Aramco Services
BHP Billiton
Biogen Idec
BP America
Cargill
Chevron
CITGO Petroleum
Codelco-Chile
ConocoPhillips
Dow Chemical
DuPont

Eastman Chemical
Eli Lilly and Company
ExxonMobil
General Motors
GlaxoSmithKline
Intel
International Paper
Kaiser Permanente
Kraft Foods
Marathon Oil
NASA
NAVFAC
NOVA Chemicals
Ontario Power Generation
Petrobras
Praxair
Procter & Gamble
Progress Energy

Rohm and Haas
Sasol Technology
Shell
Smithsonian Institution
Solutia
Southern Company
Sunoco
TVA
U.S. Architect of the Capitol
U.S. Army Corps of Engrs.
NIST
U.S. Dept. of Energy
U.S. Dept. of Health &
Human Services
U.S. Dept. of State
U.S. General Svcs. Admin.
U.S. Steel
Weyerhaeuer
Order Change Approved Cost Project Predicted Initial
Cost Project Total Actual
Factor Budget

88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years of CII Membership (3 Year Moving Average)
B
u
d
g
e
t

F
a
c
t
o
r
1.1%
10 Years
Owner Members
Changes Approved Duration Project Predicted Initial
Duration Project Total Actual
Factor Schedule

90%
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years of CII Membership (3 Year Moving Average)
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

F
a
c
t
o
r
7.0%
10 Years
Owner Members
Contractor Members
ABB Lummus Global
Adolfson & Peterson Constr.
Aker Kvaerner
Alstom Power
AMEC
Atkins Faithful & Gould
Autodesk
AZCO
Baker Concrete Construction
BE&K
Bechtel Group
Black & Veatch
Bowen Engineering
Burns & McDonnell
CB&I
CCC Group
CDI Engineering Solutions
CH2M HILL
CSA Group
Day & Zimmermann
Dick Corporation
Dresser-Rand
Emerson Process Mgmt.
Fluor
Foster Wheeler USA
Fru-Con Construction
Grinaker-LTA
GS Engrg. & Construction
Hargrove and Associates
Harper Industries
Hatch
Hill International
Hilti
Hyundai Engrg. & Constr.
J. Ray McDermott
Jacobs
JMJ Associates
KBR
Kiewit Construction Group
M. A. Mortenson
Mustang Engineering
Nielsen-Wurster Group
Parsons
Pathfinder
Perot Systems
Primavera Systems
R. J. Mycka
S&B Engrs. & Constructors
Shaw Group
Siemens Power Generation
Skire
SNC-Lavalin
Technip
URS Corporation
Victaulic
Walbridge Aldinger
WorleyParsons
Yates Construction
Zachry Construction
Zurich
Contractor Members
90%
95%
100%
105%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years of CII Membership (3 Year Moving Average)
B
u
d
g
e
t

F
a
c
t
o
r
3.9%
10 Years
Contractor Members
90%
95%
100%
105%
110%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years of CII Membership (3 Year Moving Average)
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

F
a
c
t
o
r
5.3%
10 Years
Five Elements of Project Success
Work and Work Process
Organizational Engineering
Leadership and Governance
Communication and Information Flow
Culture and Environment (Macro, Micro)
Lack Material, Information, Equipment, Labor?
Results in Poor Productivity (Metrics)
Results in Poor Project Performance (Metrics)
Need for Reliable Metrics
Point of Departure
CII Benchmarking & Metrics Overview
Industry Leaders Choose CII Benchmarking
Because it Leads to Success
CII Benchmarking is a user
friendly, resource efficient,
statistically credible
benchmarking system that
provides quantitative data
essential for the support of
cost/benefit analyses. ...
Enhance Business Effectiveness
Highlight Problems and Root
Causes
Establish Improvement
Goals
Implement CII Best Practices
(BP)
Realize Up to:
22% Schedule Reduction
16% Cost Savings
Continuously Improve
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

B
P
Measure
PlanandEduction
S
t
a
r
t
Continuous
Improvement
What Gets Measured Gets Improved:
Benchmark with CII and Get Results
CII Benchmarking & Metrics Primer
1,600 Projects Entered Since 1996
Confidential
Inexpensive
Free with CII Membership
No Consultants Required (Self Evaluation)
Compelling Metrics
Unique Measures of Best Practices & Productivity for
Engineering and Construction
Not a Black Box Easy to Comprehend
External Performance Benchmarks of Cost,
Schedule, Safety, Change, and Rework
Project Key
Reports
Industry Reports 24/7
Internet
Data Entry
CII Benchmarking Products
Enable Best in Class Performance
Identify Industry Trends and Drivers
BM&M Committee
Gibson, Jim (Co-Chair) Alstom Power
Helland, Harold (Co-Chair) Abbott
Allmen, Carol - General Motors
Caggiano, John U.S. Corps of Engineers
Chapman, Bob NIST
Curbello, Chris CB&I
Davis, Shari Mustang Engineering
Dove, Ralph CH2M HILL
Gokey, Mark Bechtel
Gordon, Scott Shell Oil Company
Green, Charlie Aramco Services
Herrington, Bob Jacobs
Hile, Dave Black & Veatch
Kass, Howard NASA

Neale, David Fluor
Nielsen, Mike Merck
Orellana, Roberto Procter & Gamble
Perkins, David Rohm and Haas
Pitcher, Jon Eli Lilly
Scott, Danny BE&K
Slaughter, Jimmy S&B Engineers and
Constructors
Warnock, Steve Washington Group
Woldy, Paul Chevron

Mulva, Stephen (Ex-Officio) CII
Dai, Jiukun (Ex-Officio) CII
DeGezelle, Deborah (Ex-Officio) CII

CII Benchmarking
Benchmarking
Associate
Project Team
Project Team
Project Team
Project Team
Account
Manager
Associate
Director
Systems
Analyst
Research
Engineer
Small or Large?
Which Questionnaire?
TIC $100K-$5M
Duration 14 mo.
Site Wk-Hrs 100K
Full-time PM resources not required
Small Project
Questionnaire
TIC $5M
Duration 14 mo.
Site Wk-Hrs 100K
Full-time PM resources
required
Large Project
Questionnaire
Large Project Questionnaire
General
General Info Project Scope Owner PMT % Union Site Construction Workforce
Performance
Budgeted and Actual Project Costs by Function Planned & Actual Project Schedule
Others
Achieving Facility Capacity Project Outcomes
Work-Hours and Accident Data Project Impact Factors
Practices
Front End Planning Alignment during FEP Partnering
Team Building Project Delivery & Contract Strategy Constructability
Project Risk Assessment Change Management Zero Accident Techniques
Benchmarking Dispute Resolution Planning for Startup
Engineering Productivity (Optional)
Eng. Description Concrete Structural Steel Instrumentation
Piping Electrical Equipment Direct Hire / Contract / Off-Shore
Construction Productivity (Optional)
Concrete Structural Steel Electrical Piping
Instrumentation Equipment Insulation Scaffolding
Large Project
Supplements *
Targeted Industry Metrics
Pharma Bulk Mfg.
Pharma Secondary Mfg.
Pharma Laboratory
Pharmaceutical
Questionnaire
Project and Process
Metrics
Sulfur Recovery Units
Coker Units
Hydrotreaters
Downstream
Oil and Gas
Questionnaire
* Targeted Metrics Programs
Available Through Annual
Subscription
System Features
1,562 projects
Worth > $72 Billion
Large & Small Projects Combined
292
(19%)

1,270
(81%)
Domestic
International
686
(44%)
876
(56%)
Owners
Contractors
Domestic
CII Database
244
66
390
176
56 50
48
532
0
100
200
300
400
500
Buildings Heavy Industrial Infrastructure Light Industrial
Industry Group
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Owner
Contractor
CII Database
90
275
222
209
80
97
129
206
182
72
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
<= $5MM $5MM - $15MM $15MM - $50MM $50MM - $100MM > $100MM
Cost Category
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Owner
Contractor
CII Database
250 247
363
16
234
236
207
9
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Addition Grass Roots Modernization Maintenance
Project Nature
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Owner
Contractor
CII Database
The Value of Benchmarking
Improves project & company performance
when used as an ongoing measure
Establishes improvement goals based on
external/competitive benchmarks
Enables your company to understand & achieve
best in class performance
Uses for Benchmarking
Continuous Improvement
Implement
Best Practices
Measure
Results
Identify Opportunities
to Improve
Select
Implementation
Tools
Conduct
Training
Compare to
Competition
Uses for Benchmarking
Validation of Project Definition/ Gated Approval
PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index
Uses for Benchmarking
Establishing Performance Objectives
Company A Company B
Uses for Benchmarking
Determining Performance Relative to Peers
Benchmarking Roadmap
Adapted from Robert C. Camp
Determine What to Benchmark
(Critical Success Factors)
Define the Metrics
Develop Data Collection
Methodology
Collect Data
Identify Performance &
Practice Use Gap
Identify Reasons for Deficiencies
(Root Cause for Gap)
Develop Action Plan
(Select Practices to Narrow Gap)
Integrate Best Practices into
Project Delivery Processes
Institutionalize as Part of
Continuous Improvement Program
FEL1 FEL2 FEL3 Project Implementation
Comm/SU
Front End Planning
Detailed Engineering
Procurement
Construction
Start-up
Single
Project
Concept
Adopted &
Formal
Project
Team
Established
Project Sanction
Contract
Award to
Engineering
Firm
Release of all Drawings
& Specs
Development of
Procurement
Plan for Major
Equipment
All Major Equipment
Delivered to Site
Commencement
of Foundations
or Driving Piles
Substantial
Completion
Mechanical
Completion
Custody
Transfer
Business
Planning
-Market
Analysis
-Site
Selection
-Constraints
Envir.
Market
Resource
Risk
Analysis
Concept
Planning
-Proj Object
-Prelim Opn
Plan
-Permitting
-Prelim Proj
Document
Process
Alts
Concept
Estimate
Financial
Analysis
Milestone
Schedule
Scoping
Summary
Basic
Engineering
-Execution
Plan
Engineer
Procurement
Construction
Operations
-Update Project
Documentation
Design
Criteria
Flow Sheets
P&IDs
Equipment
Specs & Price
Project
Estimate (+10%)
Detailed Scope
Financial Analysis
CF Curves
IRR
Milestone Schedule
Project Implementation
-Organization Established
Organization Chart
Roles & Responsibilities
Team Building
Contract Style
-Detailed Design
-Procurement
Policy
Equipment
Assignment of Contracts
Material
-Construction
Execution Plan
Field Admin
Progress Review
Meetings


Commission/SU
-Commission Plan
-Training Plan
-Start-up Plan
Safety
SU Curve
Raw Material
Performance
Testing
Acceptance
Criteria
Effort vs. Value
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
o
r
t

Low High
High
Data Value
Yes
No
Types of Metrics
Performance:
Relative: Cost Growth, Schedule Growth
(Compares actual to planned)
Absolute: $/SF, $TIC/$Process Equipment,
Execution Duration/GSF (Actual or should cost)
Process: Equipment Count/Capacity (Industry Specific)
Productivity: Engineering & Construction
Practice Use: Front End Planning, Constructability,
Zero Accident Techniques
Normalization
Hard Cost (Absolute)
Benchmarking Requires
Location and Time Adjustments provide a
common basis for comparisons
Projects can be grouped geographically and
by time or
Projects can be normalized to a common
location & time
Foreign currency exchange

Cost Performance
Schedule Performance
Safety Performance
Change Performance
Rework Performance
Construction Productivity
Engineering Productivity

Practice Use

Front-End Planning
Alignment
Team Building
Partnering
Project Risk Management
Change Management
Constructability
Zero Accident Techniques
Planning for Startup
Proj. Delivery & Contract Systems
Benchmarking

Traditional Performance &
Practice Use Metrics
Performance Practice Use
14.30
14.20
13.00
12.20
11.80
9.90
9.50
8.80
8.60
8.30
7.90
13.10
10.60
7.10
6.80
6.40
6.30
0.88
7.19
6.12
5.32
4.31
3.44
3.00
2.66
2.30
1.60 1.59
1.67
1.03
1.02
1.23
1.16
0.72
0.58
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
325 413 477 497 527 613 644 770 518 765 995 936 1,117 1,073 1,129 1,195 1,333 1,276
Year and Work Hours (MM)

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
c
o
r
d
a
b
l
e

I
n
c
i
d
e
n
c
e

R
a
t
e
Industry*
CII


*OSHA Construction Division, SIC 15-17 Reflects OSHA Reporting Change (updated July 18,06)
Best Practice Use (Safety)
TRIR (1989-2006)
Cost Growth
Actual Total Project Cost - Initial Predicted Project Cost
Initial Predicted Project Cost
Delta Cost Growth
| Cost Growth |
Budget Factor
Actual Total Project Cost
Initial Predicted Project Cost + Approved Changes
Delta Budget Factor
| 1- Budget Factor |
Phase Cost Growth
Actual Phase Cost - Initial Predicted Phase Cost
Initial Predicted Phase Cost
Phase Cost Factor
Actual Phase Cost
Actual Total Project Cost
Cost Performance Metrics

Schedule Growth
Actual Total Proj Duration - Initial Predicted Proj Duration
Initial Predicted Proj Duration
Delta Schedule Growth
| Schedule Growth |
Schedule Factor
Actual Total Proj Duration
Initial Predicted Proj Duration + Approved Changes
Delta Schedule Factor
| 1- Schedule Factor |
Phase Schedule Growth
Actual Phase Duration - Initial Predicted Phase Duration
Initial Predicted Phase Duration
Phase Schedule Factor
Actual Phase Duration
Actual Total Proj Duration
Schedule Performance Metrics

TRIR Total Number of Recordable Cases x 200,000
Total Site Work-Hours
DART
Total Number of DART Cases x 200,000
Total Site Work-Hours
Safety Performance Metrics

Change Cost Factor
Total Cost of Changes
Actual Total Project Cost
Total Field Rework Factor
Total Direct Cost of Field Rework
Actual Construction Phase Cost
Change Performance Metrics

Rework Performance Metrics

Industry Sector-Specific Metrics
Current
Pharmaceutical
D/S Oil & Gas
COAA (Contract)
Upcoming
Healthcare Facilities
U/S Oil & Gas
Aviation Facilities
Future
Power Generation
Food and Beverage
K-12 Education
Downstream Oil and Gas
Industry-Specific Metrics Program
Purpose & Scope
Purpose
Develop a user defined, transparent, real
time accessible, credible and cost effective
benchmarking resource for the oil and gas
industry
Scope
Development of the metrics framework,
metric definitions, and data collection
instrument
Project selection and data input
Data analysis
Report development

Round I
Current Participants
Aramco Services
Chevron
Citgo
Marathon Oil
Shell Oil
Petrobras
Potential Participants
ConocoPhillips
Sunoco
60 Projects (10/Company) Committed
Downstream Participants
Questionnaire
Scope Focused on Refinery Projects
Detailed Cost Metrics
Two Levels of Benchmarking
Project Level
Process Unit Level
Hydrotreating
Sulfur Recovery
Coking
Owner Project Management Team (PMT)
Two points of Benchmarking
AFE (Authorization For Expenditure)
Project Completion

Project Metrics
Cost (20 Absolute)
15 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Schedule (12 Absolute)
8 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Productivity (11 Absolute)
9 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Safety (3 Absolute)
Others (8 Absolute)
6 are applicable at AFE & Completion

Metrics
Process Unit Metrics
Cost (14 Absolute)
12 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Others (3 Absolute)
3 are applicable at AFE & Completion
Process Parameters
Hydrotreaters (9 Parameters)
Sulfur Recovery Units
Cokers
Cost Structure
Project Level
Cost Structure contd
Process Unit Level
Cost


Metrics: Example
Cost Equipment Major ISBL
Cost ISBL Total
TIC
Cost FEED Total
Schedule



Duration Overall
Duration FEED
TIC
Duration Overall
Downstream Work Plan
Finished Activities
Define Oil and Gas Metrics
Program Data Collection Tool
Training for Data Collection
Currently Ongoing Activities
Input Project Data
Normalization Issues
Future Activities
Analyze data
Generate Key and Summary Reports
Assess Path Forward
Engineering
Productivity =
Actual Wk-Hrs*
IFC Quantity
* Per Design Component
Productivity =
Actual Wk-Hrs
Quantity Installed
Construction
Productivity
Categories
Concrete
Structural Steel
Equipment
Piping
Electrical
Instrumentation
Insulation (Construction Only)
Scaffolding (Construction Only)
Level I (Future)
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Project
Total
Concrete
Slabs
Foundations
Concrete
Structures
< 5 CY
5 20 CY
20 50 CY
> 50 CY
On Grade
Elevated
Area Paving
N/A
Levels of Detail
Construction Example for Concrete
R
a
w

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
N = 43 N = 19 N = 20 N = 26 N = 21
Wk-Hr / CY Wk-Hr / CY Wk-Hr / CY Wk-Hr / CY Wk-Hr / CY
Total Foundations >50 CY 20-50 CY 5-20 CY < 5 CY
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30.60
20.85
11.02
5.97
15.74
B
e
t
t
e
r

Construction Productivity
- Concrete Foundations Example
Small sample
Use with caution
Your Circle?
Foundation Size
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2D Only
2D+3D
3D Only
Piping Engineering Productivity by
2D/3D Implementation
3 year moving average
L
o
w
e
r

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

B
e
t
t
e
r

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x

Piping Engineering Productivity by
Project Characteristics
Note: at the 90% confidence level
Better Productivity
Lower Productivity
Hr / LF
% Engineering Complete
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

f
o
r

I
S
B
L

(
H
r
/
L
F
)
100 80 60 40 20 0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
E
C
50%
Analyzing CII Productivity Measures
(Construction Productivity (ISBL Pipe) vs. % Engineering Complete)
Practice Use Performance
Correlations
Value of Practice Use
What do we Measure?
Quantifying Value of Best Practices
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

M
e
t
r
i
c

(
S
c
a
l
e

M
e
t
r
i
c

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
)

Better
Better
Practice Use Metric
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
What is the relationship?

Is it significant?
How good is the fit?
How to analyze the relationship?
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

M
e
t
r
i
c

(
S
c
a
l
e

M
e
t
r
i
c

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
)

Better
Practice Use Metric
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Better
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

M
e
t
r
i
c

(
S
c
a
l
e

M
e
t
r
i
c

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
)

Better
Practice Use Metric
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low Use
High Use
How to analyze the relationship?
Better
Improvement Potential
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

M
e
t
r
i
c

(
S
c
a
l
e

M
e
t
r
i
c

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
)

Better
Better
Practice Use Metric
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low Use
High Use
Average
Performance
Improvement
Individual Project Performance
Project Reports
Metric Details
Project Reports
Funded Studies Reports
Hardcopy
Impacts of Design & IT on Project
Outcomes
Impact of the Delivery System DB
vs. DBB
Best Practices for Project Security
Industry Analysis
Special Pharmaceutical Metrics
Category Metrics
Cost TIC / Process Equipment Cost
TIC / Gross Square Footage
Schedule (Design OQ Duration) / Gross
Square Footage
(Design OQ Duration) / Total
Equipment Piece Count
Dimension

(Process Space SF + Process
Related Space SF) / Gross Square
Footage
Mechanical SF / Gross Square
Footage
Industry Analysis
CII Confidentiality Policy
Summary of Key Features
Company data are considered confidential.
Data can be used to support CII benchmarking, research, and related
academic activities only if the confidentiality of companies submitting
the data is protected.
Access to data is limited to CII staff and authorized researchers only.
All persons with access to CII data must sign confidentiality agreements
and abide by CII confidentiality policies.
When data are provided in support of research activities, all confidential
identifiers will be removed and only essential subsets of data will be
provided.
All data published and/or presented must reflect the aggregate of at
least 10 projects from 3 separate companies.
Reports and data files containing only individual project or company
data are considered confidential will not be published or provided to
researchers.
In cases where a disproportionate amount of data are provided by a
single company, CII will suppress publication of results until the data set
is sufficiently large to mitigate confidentiality or bias concerns.
CII Website: http://www.construction-institute.org/


CII Web and Project Central
Project Central My Projects
Select a Section of the Questionnaire
to input or update data

Data Entry
Easy to Use
Consistent format

Project Managers
Company Benchmarking
Associate
CII Staff, Account Mgrs.
& Committee
Key Participants
BMA Responsibility
CII Responsibility
30 Day Goal
Validation Process
Project Central - Reports
Progress Key Report

Progress Key Report
Summary View with Percentiles
Click on the bar or the n number to get a statistical summary
Click
Here!
Project Key Report
Statistical summary
and Project Score for

Process Constr. Cost
Process Equip. Cost
Data
Report
Select the level of
detail and a metric,
click chart-o-rama.

1. Pick your X Axis
2. Select your level of
detail.
3. Get your chart!


1
2
3
Data
Report
1. Pick your X Axis
2. Select your level of
detail.
3. Get your chart!


1
2
3


Output
Format
Selection
Parameters
Choose
Your Projects
Pick Metrics
Aggregate
Comparisons
Save Selections Build Report Clear Selections
Output Format:
External / Internal w/ Comparison
Selection Parameters:
My Selections:
Status Bar: Status Bar:
Chart Only
Chart vs/ Project Data
Datasheet
Key Report
Projects:
Metrics:
Under Development

BULK
MANUFACTURING
$ T IC /
$ P r o c e s s
E q u ip m e n t
C o s t
$ F a c ilit y
C o n s t . C o s t /
G S F
$ T IC / G S F
$Soft Cost /
$Hard Cost
($Design +
$Const.
mgmt.
Cost) /
$TIC
($Com. +
$Qual. Cost)
/ $TIC
Average
Pharma
Project
Cost
Growth
Pharma
Delta
Cost
Growth
Average
1001 3 4 4 3 2 4 3.33 4 4 4.00 3.50
1002 1 4 3 4 3 2 2.83 1 3 2.00 2.63
1003 1 1 1 2 1 2 1.33 1 1 1.00 1.25
Overall Metric
Performance
1.7 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.0 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.3 2.5
OVERALL PROJECT PERFORMANCE
PROJECT ID
AVERAGE
OVERALL COST PERFORMANCE
Absolute Cost Performance Relative Cost Performance
Chart-o-Rama V2
Performance
Summary Dashboard
Dynamic data mining and
reporting tool with aggregate
reporting features (Sep 08)
High level performance
summary (Mar 08)
eCommunity
eCommunity
A Look Ahead
Upstream Oil & Gas Program
Support from Fluminense Federal University
(UFF) / Petrobras (Brazil)
Joint Industry Program (JIP) with UT
Petroleum Engineering
Other Geographic Areas of Offshore Activity
Healthcare Specialty Metrics Program
Extension of COAA Contract
Aviation Facilities
What gets measured, gets improved!
When you're average, you're just as close to the bottom as you
are the top.
- Unknown