Gic Cii MD STD 001

Advanced Work Packaging:
Design through Workface Execution
Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1

Volume I
CII Member Companies
Abbott AMEC
Air Products and Chemicals AZCO
Ameren Corporation Alstom Power
American Transmission Company Audubon Engineering Company
Anglo American Baker Concrete Construction
Anheuser-Busch InBev Barton Malow Company
Aramco Services Company Bechtel Group
ArcelorMittal Bentley Systems
Architect of the Capitol Bilfinger Industrial Services
BP America Black & Veatch
CITGO Petroleum Corporation Burns & McDonnell
Cameco Corporation CB&I
Cargill CCC Group
Chevron CDI Engineering Solutions
ConocoPhillips CH2M HILL
Consolidated Edison Company of New York CSA Central
DTE Energy Coreworx
The Dow Chemical Company Day & Zimmermann
DuPont Dresser-Rand Company
Eastman Chemical Company eProject Management
Ecopetrol Emerson Process Management
Eskom Holdings Faithful+Gould
ExxonMobil Corporation Fluor Corporation
General Electric Company Foster Wheeler USA Corporation
General Motors Corporation GS Engineering & Construction Corporation
GlaxoSmithKline Gross Mechanical Contractors
Global Infrastructure Partners Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Huntsman Corporation Hatch
International Paper Hilti Corporation
Irving Oil Limited IHI E&C International Corporation
Kaiser Permanente IHS
Koch Industries Industrial Contractors Skanska
Eli Lilly and Company International Rivers Consulting
Linde North America JMJ Associates
LyondellBasell JV Driver Projects
Marathon Oil Corporation Jacobs
National Aeronautics & Space Administration KBR
NOVA Chemicals Corporation Kiewit Corporation
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kvaerner North American Construction
Ontario Power Generation Lauren Engineers & Constructors
Petroleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras Leidos Constructors, LLC
Petroleos Mexicanos Matrix Service Company
Petroliam Nasional Berhad McCarthy Building Companies
Phillips 66 McDermott International
Praxair Midwest Steel
The Procter & Gamble Company Parsons
Public Service Electric & Gas Company Pathfinder
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) POWER Engineers
SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation Quality Execution
Sasol Technology Richard Industrial Group
Shell Global Solutions US The Robins & Morton Group
Smithsonian Institution S&B Engineers and Constructors
Southern Company SKEC USA
Statoil ASA SNC-Lavalin
SunCoke Energy Technip
TNK-BP Tenova
Teck Resources Limited TOYO-SETAL Engenharia
Tennessee Valley Authority URS Corporation
TransCanada Corporation Victaulic Company
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walbridge
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/ Wanzek Construction
Engineering Laboratory Wilhelm Construction
U.S. Department of Defense/Tricare Willbros United States Holdings
Management Activity Wood Group Mustang
U.S. Department of Energy WorleyParsons
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Yates Construction
U.S. Department of State Zachry Holdings
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Zurich
U.S. General Services Administration
Vale
The Williams Companies
Advanced Work Packaging:
Research Team 272, Advanced Work Packaging:

Construction Industry Institute

Construction Owners Association of Alberta
Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1
Volume I
October 2013
Prepared as a joint research project of the Construction Industry Institute

and the Construction Owners Association of Alberta, an intellectual and
financial partnership
© 2013 Construction Industry Institute™ and Construction Owners Association of Alberta.
The University of Texas at Austin.
CII and COAA members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients.
Members of both organizations are permitted to revise and adapt this work for internal use, provided an informational copy is
furnished to CII and COAA.
Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed, and no modifications may be made
without prior written permission from CII and COAA. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase
copies. Volume discounts may be available.
All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member
prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.
Printed in the United States of America.
Version 1.0 (July 2011)

Version 2.0 (April 2012) – addition of previous second volume, Implementation Case Studies and Expert Interviews
Version 3.0 (July 2013) – addition of new second volume, Implementation Guidance; renumbering of Implementation Case
Studies and Expert Interviews as third volume
Version 3.1 (October 2013) – modifications to cover, title page, and copyright notice
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Scope 2
1.3 Benefits 2
2. Framework 7
2.1 Definitions 7
2.2 Prerequisites to Advanced Work Packaging 11
2.3 Work Packaging Overview/Recommended Process 12
2.4 Organizational Recommendations 48
3. Summary 51
References 53
Appendix A: Case Study 55
Appendix B: Figures for Reproduction 61

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Overview
CII Research Team (RT) 272, Advanced Work Packaging: Design through Workface Execution1, was
chartered to review current work packaging practices and identify an enhanced model for implementation
that represents the better or best practices available. This implementation resource (IR) is the product
of a team of industry experts and academics, whose work together included the following: a review
of the current industry and trade literature; case studies of work packaging in the global industrial
and commercial construction sectors; and the development of an execution model for the project life
cycle—from project definition to system turnover—with an emphasis on field implementation. This
model, together with supporting definitions, assessment tools, and examples of leading industry
practice, represents a logical synthesis of best practices across a range of work packaging activities. It
includes extensions that support a holistic process of planning for work packaging, beginning at project
definition. The research team validated the model through external expert review. Implementation of the
model is supported by extended discussion of contracting, process integration, job roles, templates,
and assessment tools in IR 272-2 Volume II, Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Guidance.
IR 272-2, Volume III, Advanced Work Packaging: Implementation Case Studies and Expert Interviews
is presented as a supplement to aid effective implementation.
This first volume is composed of three sections, the first of which reviews the scope of work
packaging and its benefits. The second section presents a framework for the work packaging model
for project life cycle implementation and field implementation, along with supporting definitions and
summarized recommendations. The third section provides summary comments and recommendations.
1
Research Team (RT) 272 Phase I was originally chartered in 2009 as Enhanced Work Packaging: Design through
Workface Execution, and reported out at the CII annual conference in 2011. From the beginning, the Construction
Owners Association of Alberta was a collaborative partner in the research, contributing data from its members’
pioneering implementations of workface planning. Due to the promise of early industry success and COAA’s
interest in a continued collaboration, CII and COAA jointly chartered Phase II of the research in 2011. As part
of Phase II, the team focused on refining the alignment between the original CII effort in Phase I and COAA’s
ongoing workface planning efforts. This led to two substantive definition and name changes: 1) the original
name, “Enhanced Work Packaging,” was changed to “Advanced Work Packaging,” both to better characterize
the scope of the recommendations and to remove potential confusion with the acronym for Engineering Work
Package; 2) in the context of Advanced Work Packaging, the COAA term “workface planning” is used to refer
specifically to construction execution of the AWP process.
1
1.2 Scope
Traditionally, contractors face a large amount of rework due to both poor field planning and poor
coordination between engineering and construction. The loss of productivity caused by rework can
be harnessed and turned around if the work packaging process is implemented properly. Early project
planning that integrates work packaging with engineering, procurement, construction, and project
controls increases the probability of the following:
• The engineering team supports the construction sequence and schedule.
• Vendor-supplied equipment remains on schedule.
• Materials are purchased and delivered to support construction.
• Communication of specific work tasks is improved at the workface, from the superintendent
level through the craft ranks. (Throughout this document the team uses the term workface;
this term is interchangeable with the term work front.)
• Constraints such as craft availability, material laydown, scaffolding, and IFC drawings are
better managed.
• Work toward closeout and turnover is better controlled.
While this is not an exhaustive list is of the potential improvements from advanced work packaging,
it provides a snapshot of the areas that are most often vulnerable to failure on construction projects.
It should be noted, however, that the implementation of advanced work packaging requires planning
and discipline; a significant learning curve should be expected.
1.3 Benefits
The case studies performed by RT 272 revealed that the effective implementation of work packaging
techniques improves productivity and increases predictability of project performance.
1.3.1 Productivity
Experts estimate that roughly 40 percent of the total cost of a typical industrial construction contract
is direct and indirect craft labor. Furthermore, studies have shown that approximately 33 percent of
craft labor is spent on value added work (i.e., tool time), while the other 67 percent is consumed by
waiting/idle, traveling, looking for/gathering tools and materials, among other things. Waiting/idle
time and traveling time represent 44 percent of a typical craftsman’s workday (McTague and Jergeas,
2002). One study estimates that a 25-percent reduction in labor cost can be realized by minimizing
productivity losses on some of the indirect work by implementing a more detailed execution planning
strategy (Constructions Owners Association of Alberta – COAA, 2007). Improved productivity requires
a commitment to excellence, effective planning, and diligent follow-through.
2
Advanced work packaging provides a structure for focused execution planning that is directed
at the construction workface. It is a process that reduces unproductive, non-value added time. A
key requirement of this process is a collaboration between construction and engineering during the
engineering planning phase. This collaboration ensures that the project is designed with a sequence
that supports construction, and that the supply chain is sequenced accordingly. Advanced work
packaging is a construction-driven process that adopts the philosophy of “beginning with the end in
mind.” Implementation of this process ultimately ensures that all constraints for a given work package
have either been identified and removed or addressed. The implementation of advanced work packaging
will also free up the foreman from crisis management, and allow for more mentoring and true craft
management. The work packaging and constraint management processes remove the guesswork
from executing at the workface by tightly defining the scope of all work involved, and by ensuring that
all things necessary for execution are in place. This increased preparation and certainty improves the
likelihood that the work will be done in the time allotted.
Case studies reveal that successful work packaging improves productivity and leads to improvements
across other project areas. Moreover, safety performance improves as a result of both better project
organization and a reduced number of direct craft work hours. Improvements in quality and reductions
in rework can be realized through the inclusion of all required specifications and procedures in
each work package. Another result of improved productivity is improved schedule performance.
Because work packages set aggressive but attainable completion dates, and because they increase
the probability that the engineering documents will be delivered to construction when needed, the
use of work packaging makes it more likely that the overall project will finish on time—if not earlier.
Lastly, all of these improvements lead to significant cost savings. Every direct craft work hour saved
proportionately results in savings for associated supervision, support craft labor, and construction
equipment. Companies implementing work packaging have found that these cost savings more than
offset the increased costs associated with workface planning efforts.
1.3.2 Predictability
One of the industry’s biggest challenges is the accurate and consistent forecasting of project
performance in spite of the many highly unpredictable variables that are characteristic of construction
projects. Being able to plan for these variables can significantly improve the probability of project
success and might be the capacity that separates great contractors from average ones. Effective
work packaging is a tool for managing variances, building flexibility, and accommodating change.
Indeed, consistent and predictable performance depends on breaking a project down into manageable
packages—for example, one that a single work crew could complete in a week—that identify the
requirements necessary to start and complete their installation. For advanced work packaging to be
effective, it is crucial that a package not be released until all constraints have been removed. In the
absence of these obstacles and with an accumulation of packages ready for release to the field, the
likelihood of a productive and timely installation is greatly increased.
3
Additionally, by removing uncertainty and guesswork, and by following a focused and organized
execution plan, project management can greatly improve worker morale and reduce personnel
turnover. Also, with minimal variation on projects, safety performance will be more consistent and
predictable. Moreover, the work packaging process is tied to the procurement process at a very
granular level, since it only releases work that can be executed without encumbrance, i.e., work for
which all supplies, materials, and equipment are in hand. By using each work package to proactively
manage the constraining variables in the field and to communicate in advance about necessary time
and resources, project leaders can achieve more predictable performance.
1.3.3 Evidence
The benefits of work packaging are documented in both objective and subjective terms by two
important industry organizations: the Construction Owner’s Association of Alberta and CII. Following
is a summary of these benefits:
• Two projects of similar size and scope, performed in the same general proximity for the same
owner and by the same contractor were compared. One of these projects implemented a
work packaging process and one did not. The project that implemented work packaging
deployed a dedicated planning team continuously monitored constraints and involved
construction in the engineering planning process. This project realized the following
advantages over the project that did not implement work packaging:
––fifty percent more efficient rate of installation, i.e., 55 meters/work hour versus 35 meters/
work hour
––on-time project completion; two-month overrun on the other project
––average time from spool delivery to time of installation 3.5 months; 8.5 months for the other
project
––lower rework rate—6.5 percent versus 7.0 percent (Slootman, 2007).
• Benefits found in the RT 272 case studies include the following:

––improved safety planning and awareness
––improved up-front planning
––improved overall project predictability
––improved housekeeping
––reduced cost
––better alignment, from engineering into construction
––improved foreman performance
––better than normal craft retention due to improved morale
––improved quality of reporting from effective progress tracking
––improved customer/stakeholder satisfaction. (See Appendix A.)
4
• Additional positive outcomes for a project that implemented advanced work packaging
include the following:
––superior safety performance – 0.21 TRIR
––productivity factor was 11 percent better than budget
––project finished 10 percent under budget
––field rework less than 0.5 percent
––project completion ahead of the target schedule (Jacobs, 2010).
5
Chapter 2: Framework
This section provides the basic definitions for work packaging, and presents a basic framework
for its work processes. RT 272 presents these processes as the best of leading practice. The team
recommends that companies use this discussion as the core source document for translating these
findings into internal procedures and implementation. IR 272-2, Volume II, Advanced Work Packaging:
Implementation Guidance, presents detailed project integration flowcharts (PIFs) that build from the
model presented in this document to help translate advanced work packaging procedures to typical
execution processes.
2.1 Definitions
Introduction
The definitions below explain the building blocks of work packaging. Currently, the understanding
of these terms varies throughout the construction industry. The objective of defining them here is to
standardize the language surrounding work packaging and to provide a coherent basis for industry
discussions of the practice. The definitions have been adapted from documents produced by the
Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA), the Construction Industry Institute (CII), and other
sources. The definitions are intended for use with the workflow diagrams provided below.
It is important to note the significant contribution of COAA to this work. The work of the COAA
Workface Planning Committee to document the process and the organization’s efforts in the field
have together laid the foundation for the model presented in this implementation resource (IR). The
COAA term workface planning has been used as an all-inclusive term for techniques to improve field
performance. However, workface planning as defined is this volume refers specifically to field activities
and is a subset of the overall process of advanced work packaging. COAA and CII jointly endorse the
definitions presented below.
Advanced Work Packaging
Advanced work packaging is the overall process flow of all the detailed work packages (CWPs,
EWPs, and IWPs). It is a planned, executable process that encompasses the work on an engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) project, beginning with initial planning and continuing through
detailed design and construction execution. Advanced work packaging provides the framework for
productive and progressive construction, and presumes the existence of a construction execution plan.
7
Workface Planning
Workface planning is the process of organizing and delivering all the elements necessary for an
installation work package, before the work is started. This proactive process enables craft workers
to perform their work safely, effectively, and efficiently. This is accomplished by breaking down
construction work (by trade) into discrete installation work packages that completely describe/cover
the scope of work for a given project. This process promotes the efficient use of available resources
and permits the tracking of progress.
Workface Planning Lead
A workface planning lead is a person knowledgeable about EPC projects who is chosen to
participate in a project’s front end planning, and who will later transition to the jobsite. On the jobsite,
this workface planning lead will provide essential coordination among engineering, procurement,
and construction personnel. This coordination ultimately results in the timely issuance of a complete
and constructible installation work package (IWP), a comprehensive document that supports the
construction schedule. The workface planning lead will head a staff of workface planners that is
sized to match the scope and complexity of the project. Each of these workface planners should have
sufficient understanding of construction to prepare discipline-specific IWPs with the required support
from other departments and approval from construction management.
Work Breakdown Structure
The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a hierarchical representation of a complete project or

program. The components of a WBS are arrayed in ever-increasing detail, as is appropriate for any
given project (CII, 1988).
Engineering Work Package
An engineering work package (EWP) is an engineering and procurement deliverable that is used
to create construction work packages (CWPs). The EWP should be aligned with the construction
sequence and priorities. A typical EWP for a CWP includes the following:
• scope of work with document list
• drawings (e.g., general arrangement and equipment installation)
• installation and materials specifications
• vendor data (e.g., equipment O&M manuals)
• Bill of Materials
• lists (e.g., line lists and equipment lists)
• additional pertinent information to support (e.g., permitting studies).
8
Construction representation during the planning of an EWP is critical. CWPs can contain more
than one EWP. EWP completion should be supportive of efficient engineering, but EWP deliverables
should be subordinate to the project execution plan and to the sequence and timing of CWPs.
Construction Work Package
A construction work package (CWP) defines a logical and manageable division of work within the
construction scope. CWPs are aligned with the project execution plan (which includes the construction
plan) and the WBS. The division of work is defined such that CWPs do not overlap within a discipline.
CWPs are to be measurable and in alignment with project controls. CWPs are the basis for the
development of detailed installation work packages. Also, they can contain more than one EWP. A
CWP is typically aligned with a bid package. A typical CWP includes the following:
• safety requirements
• at least one EWP
• schedule
• budget (work hours/cost/productivity)
• environmental requirements
• quality requirements
• special resource requirements.
A CWP may be divided by area, system, or as otherwise determined by the project (construction)
execution plan. In general, it is better to develop CWPs by discipline A large project will likely contain
multiple CWPs. CWPs can be the basis of contractual scopes of work, and are typically aligned with
a bid package; a contractual scope may contain more than one CWP. CWPs are developed over time,
from contract through construction execution. Complete specifications of CWPs grow over time to
include productivity factors, detailed cost reports, and other considerations.
Installation Work Package
An installation work package (IWP) is the deliverable that enables a construction work crew
to perform work in a safe, predictable, measurable, and efficient manner. An IWP is scoped to be
manageable and “progressable”; it is typically of limited size such that a crew can complete the work
in about a week. An IWP contains the necessary documentation supporting workface execution. IWP
should be approved by the responsible stakeholders, and any constraints should be mitigated before
issuance to the field. A typical IWP includes the following:
• work package summary—inclusive of description of work, location, system or facility code,

originator, contact information, sequenced work steps, reference documents, estimate of
work hours and quantities, cost codes, witness or hold points, and special comments
9
• quantity work sheet
• safety hazard analysis, specific to tasks in work package
• Material Safety Data Sheet
• drawings (engineering and vendor design)
• specifications (engineering and vendor design)
• change documents (i.e., field change request, deficiency report/non-conformance report, and
design change notice)
• manufacturer’s installation instructions
• model shots
• Bills of Materials
• required tools
• installation test results forms
• as-built documentation
• inspection checklists
• completion verification signatures.
All elements necessary to complete the scope of the IWP should be organized and delivered before
work is started. The originator should cover the work with the responsible safety, quality, superintendent,
and craft personnel in a preparatory meeting, with special focus on anticipated constraints. Generally,
the scope of work associated with the IWP should be small enough that it could be completed by
a single foreman and crew within a pre-defined block of work hours. Work hour blocks should be
between 500 and 1,000 hours.
An IWP contains all applicable and pertinent documents in support of safe and efficient installation
of a specific portion of a system by a given trade. These documents are written specifically for the
crew performing the activity. In general, each IWP should require a level of effort for one crew for
approximately one week (i.e., 500–1,000 work hours). It should include a scope for the work, work
constraints, design documents, materials, quality records, construction equipment requirements
and budget for the work. Even though IWPs are generally developed by area and do not cross CWP
boundaries, they may be broken down by commissioning system later in a project. In such instances,
an IWP may cross CWP boundaries.
10
2.2 Prerequisites to Advanced Work Packaging

To some degree, work packaging is carried out in a similar manner on all projects irrespective of
how they are executed. However, advanced work packaging requires strategic early planning and
a more focused project structure. Specifically, advanced work packaging requires an effective flow
of information. An effective flow of information, in turn, depends upon having a disciplined set of
procedures. IWPs in the field must be supported by an effective project controls system that is based
on a clear WBS. IWPs also require established document control and materials management systems.
An inability to pull the correct documents and to efficiently track and bag and tag materials impedes
the ability to form, review, and manage IWPs. These requirements carry forward to the management
of EWPs and CWPs. Effective project controls, document control, and procurement systems must be
in place for the proper management of engineering or construction work packages. If these systems
are not in place, it is likely that efforts to implement advanced work packaging will not be successful.
(Readers are referred to CII resources on project controls and materials management, RS 244-1, Global
Project Control and Management Systems, and IR 257-3, Materials Management Planning Guide, for
up-to-date information on these areas.)
Advanced work packaging does not necessarily require implementation of computerized systems.
Sometimes, work packaging is accomplished effectively on projects using traditional paper-based
systems. Characteristics of these systems are well-specified handoffs or interfaces between systems,
clear definition of workflows and distribution, and a common understanding of processes among project
team members. However, even though such a low-tech approach can be successful, the large volume
of information that work packages touch makes a computerized approach more desirable. Integrated
databases and workflows, ideally centered on a 3D CAD model, should support workface planning as
well as other functions. Figure 1 shows how an integrated 3D CAD database stands as the center support
for workface planners, as well as for personnel in project controls, engineering, materials management,
and other common capital project functions. This kind of implementation of data integration can take
a variety of forms, since many systems must be tied together. For most firms, it means a combination
of commercial software and proprietary systems. Commercial workface planning software that can
directly support IWP management is now available from vendors. This software can tie to a variety of
other CAD software applications using common data standards. In all cases, attention must be paid
to data specification and handoffs between applications; such careful data integration will ensure that
all individuals and software are working to a common definition and purpose.
11
Figure 1. Integrated 3D Model Supporting Workface Planning and Other Capital Project Functions
(Adapted from: Ryan, 2009)
2.3 Work Packaging Overview/Recommended Process

Figure 2 presents an overview flow chart of the model of the integrated advanced work packaging
process presented here. Advanced work packaging entails planning in the earliest stages of the
project and carrying the planned activities through to field execution—and, ultimately, into start-up
and turnover processes. In the sections below, the discussion focuses on the three stages shown in
Figure 2. The Integrated Life Cycle Flow Charts and Narrative section provides detail on Stages I
and II—preliminary planning through detailed engineering. Stage III—construction/IWP execution—is
detailed in several sub-charts. The terminology used in these discussions follows the RT 272 definitions
for work packaging.
12
Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart
STAGE I STAGE II STAGE III

Preliminary Planning/Design Detailed Engineering Construction
Construction Schedule CWP

Detailed IWP System
Project and Refinement and EWP Schedule
Engineering Construction Development Turnovers/Start-up
Definition Engineering & WBS Boundary Development
Schedule & Execution & Commissioning
Planning Development Development
Figure 2. Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart
2.3.1 Integrated Life Cycle Flow Charts and Narrative

Work packaging in the project life cycle occurs in several discrete steps that are common to capital
project delivery. Depending on project specifics, owner convention, and the involvement of engineering
and construction firms, these steps may occur at different project phases, (e.g., front end planning [FEP]
and its sub-phases [FEP1 and FEP2], design, procurement, construction, and start-up, as defined by
CII). Individual organizations should adapt the work packaging steps shown in the Integrated Advanced
Work Packaging Flow Chart in Figure 2 to their particular project execution practices. (Note that all of
the steps in each phase depicted in Figure 2 are detailed in figures throughout the rest of this volume;
these figures are also reproduced in Appendix B in large format to aid reproduction.)
How to use the Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart
As shown the rectangular boxes in the Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart presented
in Figure 2, there are several detailed steps to the process. With each process step comes a set of
deliverables/key activities associated with effective work packaging. Further narrative detail to support
each process step, including scope, assumptions, and recommendations, is provided below. (Note
that the narrative for IWP Development and Execution, part of Stage III, is presented in Section 1.3.3,
Evidence.)
The flow chart is generally read from left to right, following the expected sequence of steps.
In Figures 3, 5, and 6, the three stages are respectively shown in greater detail. In these figures,
precedence order is established by uni-directional arrows. There is no timescale for execution implied
by the chart. Note, however, that the construction planning and CWP boundary development steps
in Figure 3 are run in parallel with engineering planning and EWP boundary development. Effective
work packaging implies planning for field execution early in the process and developing engineering
schedules and engineering work packages that are sequenced to support the field schedule. At the
same time, engineering constraints do affect construction; interdependency between planning and
boundary development efforts is shown in the blue bi-directional arrows shown on the chart.
13
Stage I – Project Definition
Scope
Work packaging should be addressed early in project development so that the path for efficient
downstream execution can be laid out. Early consideration of work packaging prevents the boxing
in of any specific discipline into less than optimal solutions. It also supports project-planning efforts
that meet installation-packaging requirements. Prior to the start of a detailed engineering kick-off, key
deliverables and requirements formulated from the project definition phase and requirements should
be identified and recommended. These requirements and deliverables will be refined as the project
progresses into the detailed planning and engineering stages. Details of Stage I (as shown in Figure 3)
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
STAGE I
Preliminary Planning/Design
Construction CWP Boundary

Planning Development
Plan for Work Packaging Plot Plan or General Arrangement
Refine Contracting Plan Drawings
Refine Sequence of Construction Construction Plan
Plan for Procurement and Logistics Contracting/Procurement Execution
Project Plan
Definition Identify Site/Project Constraints Schedule Sequence of Installation
Consider Weather Risks Refinement & WBS Crafts Workers Available
Define Overall Scope of Deliver Construction Plan Development
Work/Project WBS
Consider Temporary Structures/Utility
Define Contracting and Requirements Level 2: Geographical Layout of Systems/Areas
Procurement Plan Consider Options for Construction E – by discipline Materials of Construction
Define Construction Equipment P – by commodity Client/Contractor Contract Milestones
Sequencing System Turnover Sequence System Turnover Sequence
C – by discipline
Technical Deliverable
Requirements Preliminary IWP
release plan
Levels of Design Engineering
EWP Boundary
Planning
Development
Plan for Work Packaging
Consideration for Modular Construction
Review Contracting Plan
Consider Construction Feedback
Review Sequence of Construction
Define EWP Standard
Review Project Definition Deliverables
Review Procurement Plan
General Arrangement/Plot Plan
Technology Plan
Figure 3. Stage I – Preliminary Planning/Design
Assumptions
• The project will go through a typical project life cycle to mechanical completion, even if
the engineering, procurement, and/or construction entities are different. In other words, if
engineering is provided by a stand-alone A/E, it will be integrated with a constructor to shape
14
a design process that supports the installation process.
• Detailed engineering has not commenced.
• Owners and contractors are involved in the project definition process.
• P&IDs and PFDs are at a level that can be handed over to detailed engineering.
• Construction planning resources are available.
• Organizational structure identifies the necessary workface planners and support staff for
each process block.
Recommendations
It is important for the design engineer to embrace a total project view during the design phase in
order to position the project for effective implementation of work packaging during construction. The
project definition must consider the preliminary construction plan and be developed well enough to
allow for key quantities of commodities. This will provide a construction team with the information it
needs to develop an approach to implementing work packaging. The types of information required
from the engineer are as follows:
1. Definition of the overall scope of work/project – In order to support work packaging,

the documents used to define the project scope should also reflect components of the
construction sequencing plan and the contracting plan. A plot plan identifying the various
areas and the initial timing is invaluable to future team members.
2. Project contracting/Procurement plan – It is necessary to develop a plan to clarify
contractual boundaries as well as the divisions of responsibilities between contracts. The
contracting plan should be detailed enough to support high-level packaging. This plan
should be coordinated with a procurement plan.
3. Project execution/Construction plan and sequence – This plan will include any
decisions on installation approaches, e.g., the deployment of modular construction. A
key document that is seldom generated at this stage is a construction-sequencing plan.
If included, this document should be used to convey the original intent of how the project
will be constructed to future partners. Early planning in the next phases of the project
should build and refine this document, and all stakeholders need to agree on the plan. It is
critical for engineering planning to understand how the project will be constructed so that
engineering can align EWPs with the future CWPs.
4. Technical deliverables requirements – It is important to make technical decisions that
require the engineers on the project to develop their deliverables to support packaging.
These deliverables must be defined early and communicated so that engineering can
proceed with a clear understanding of the level of detail. They also allow for the kinds of
engineering deliverables required to support procurement, fabrication, and development of
15
CWPs. Examples of these technical deliverables requirements include the following major
decision/design criteria narratives that relate to steel, pipe, and electrical (materials of
construction):
–– Steel design and connections – The sequence of the procurement, fabrication, and
delivery of the steel must support the preferred installation sequence. This may
include attachments for pipe hangers or other commodities supported by the steel.
–– Piping isometrics for all piping equal to or greater than three-quarters of an inch
for all systems and areas of the project – Piping isometrics provide the information
necessary for the logistics of purchasing, fabricating, and delivering the spools, as
well as for the development of the installation work for their installation.
–– Physical raceway and conduit drawings – It is necessary to define routings that form
the basis for the commodity takeoffs. These routing also serve source documents for
the field staff who scope the installation work packages.
Stage I – Construction Planning
Scope
The objective of this process is to identify construction planning activities that affect work packaging.
Effective work packaging that stems from construction planning is key to establishing alignment with
engineering. It is also fundamental to laying out the basis for effective design of CWPs and ultimately
to providing for the effective execution of IWPs. If work packaging requirements and considerations
are not dealt with during construction planning, the likelihood of having ineffective work packaging is
high. The preliminary planning for the majority of activities that take place at the construction site or
that are largely dependent on site implementation will be completed during this process. Resource
requirements, to the extent possible, will be defined during this process. Provisions to accommodate
system turnover/commissioning also need to be considered.
Many of the considerations developed in this process will be refined in the Construction Work
Package Boundary Development process. Two key outcomes of this process, with respect to work
packaging, are 1) the determination of constraints and 2) the development of plans to allow generation
of a Level 2 schedule, as reflected in the Refine Schedule and Develop WBS step of the process.
Assumptions
1. Site location has been finalized.
2. The project definition process has been completed with construction input.
3. The scope narrative is available.
4. Preliminary design basis documents are available (e.g., preliminary General Arrangement
drawing(s) and preliminary P&IDs that are defined beyond PFDs).
5. Long lead-time items with rough delivery times and rough weights and dimensions have
been determined.
16
6. Permit requirements are known.

7. Other major schedule requirements and constraints are identified.
8. Construction expertise has been retained for this process.
9. There is communication with engineering planning.
Recommendations
1. Plan for work packaging.
A deliberate and well thought-out plan needs to be developed for work packaging in this early
stage. The size and complexity of each project will determine the resource requirements for the
work packaging plan. The following questions must be considered, evaluated, and budgeted for:
• What are the requirements for work packaging development and supervision?
• Are there contractual requirements with regard to work packaging?
• Is the intent to develop and manage the work packages manually or to use software
designed to assist in the work packaging effort?
• If electronic, is there agreement on compatible systems and information flows (or a plan in
place to achieve this)?
• How will engineering and material management documents be incorporated into the work
package process?
• Has a responsibility matrix been developed for work packaging?
• Who will write the work package process?
2. Refine contracting plan.

During the construction planning process, the following elements must be defined: various
work scopes that will be contracted; the method for which they will be contracted; standard
contractual terms to be used (including work packaging requirements); the prequalification
process; craft affiliation (e.g., union, non-union, or Davis-Bacon); and the timing requirements
for issuance and awarding of packages. Local conditions and requirements (regulatory or
any other kind) may change the scope of planned contracts and CWPs. Additionally, defining
how the various contractors’ work packaging processes will be incorporated into the overall
project plan will be necessary at this planning stage. Contracts should include provisions for
consistent reporting requirements for vendors/subcontractors to ensure compatible information
flows for statusing progress and supporting work packaging.
3. Refine sequence of construction.

In general, the sequence of construction activities should be established at this early planning
stage. This is critical to ensuring that engineering can sequence its work to support construction.
Construction progress and planning can be limited by the sequencing and timing of the
engineer’s deliverables. This allows construction to drive the engineering plan and for work
packaging to realize its greatest potential.
17
4. Plan for procurement and logistics.

The procurement and logistics resources (both offsite and onsite) must support work packaging.
There should be a plan and provisions for the procurement function that adequately support
effective work packaging execution. Examples of pertinent considerations are modularization
and preassembly, with logistics onsite to support packaging of materials. Critical items in a
thorough procurement plan include the following:
• defining responsibilities in the procurement plan
• methods for materials management and inventory control
• establishing the link between the material management process and the work packaging
process
• process for expediting vendor drawings and vendor surveillance.
Initial considerations must be identified in this process, and provisions should be made for
adequate resources for this function.
5. Identify site/project constraints.

Consider the impact of site constraints on size, composition, and sequencing of CWPs. The
initial goal of this part of the process is to identify key constraints that will likely affect CWPs.
These constraints are important initial inputs to Level 2 scheduling and engineering planning.
Further refinement of CWPs will occur in the next step, CWP Boundary Development.
6. Consider weather risks.

In extremely cold climates, winterization work packages should be developed to help
prevent costly temporary heating arrangements and poor productivity due to extremely cold
temperatures. The focus of these work packages should be on building enclosures and heat for
the buildings. Extreme heat conditions should also be planned for, since this could also affect
the work schedule and performance factors as work packages are assembled. Taking possible
adverse weather conditions into account during the planning process helps prevent delays and
increased costs. The overall strategy for dealing with inclement weather must be developed,
and possible impacts on construction sequencing and pacing should be addressed in it. This
strategy must be communicated to engineering to ensure the alignment of EWPs and CWPs.
7. Develop construction plan details.

The construction plan should include the following:
• a staffing plan (for both craft and management)
• a narrative for work sequencing (in general terms)
18
• a plan for material flow and control
• a constructability implementation plan
• considerations for work packaging
• environmental requirements that affect construction planning
• a shared services plan that covers common support craft and shared construction
equipment
• plans for material staging, subassembly, and onsite transportation.
A fairly detailed construction plan is necessary to properly plan for work packaging.
8. Consider temporary structures/utility requirements.

A plan for any temporary structures and utility requirements for the site should be developed
during the construction planning process. Establishing site traffic flow, temporary roads,
general parking, laydown areas, site security, subassembly areas, field office locations,
offsite storage (if necessary), and the related power, water and air requirements will all affect
the flow of the work and could affect the approach to work packaging. There should also be
consideration for existing facilities; site utilization, site logistics, and the optimization of these
kinds of considerations require thorough planning and, possibly, third-party review.
9. Consider options for construction equipment.

Thoughtful planning and optimization for construction equipment is critical for efficient craft
productivity and the realization of potential cost savings. Establishing placement, sizing,
and utilization for cranes is extremely important. Determining whether a common services
approach (i.e., centralized major construction equipment management) will be utilized and
how it will be managed is necessary to finalizing the contracting plan. Identifying how the
construction equipment will be incorporated into the work packaging plan should also be
considered. Minimizing construction equipment idle time by identifying equipment needs at
this early stage is highly recommended.
10. Develop system turnover sequence.

During the construction planning process, as the work packaging plan is being developed, it
is important to accommodate the need to assign system turnover designations to each item
in each work package. As the project transitions from a construction execution to a system
turnover execution, it is imperative that the work package plan anticipate and accommodate
this need. It is possible and even likely that two line numbers may be in the same work package
and in a separate system turnover package.
19
Stage I – Engineering Planning
Scope
The objective of the engineering planning process, with respect to effective work packaging, is to
achieve effective project execution through early collaborative planning with construction personnel in
the early stages of project development. Because this plan requires significant input from construction,
it considers all constraints anticipated from engineering through turnover. More importantly, though, it
considers strategies for how to address or mitigate these constraining factors. It should lay a foundation
for an effective work packaging process to be implemented during engineering and construction.
Ultimately, engineering must package its deliverables to support construction work packaging.
The deliverables of this process will be a preliminary engineering work plan, consistent with the
preliminary construction work packaging plan, and a preliminary Level 2 schedule for engineering. At
the end of this phase, the engineering team should understand its role in providing deliverables that
will eventually lead to work packaging in the field.
Assumptions
1. This planning process must have collaborative and competent input from construction
professionals. This input must be based on open and candid disclosure of the individual
discipline constraints that need to be resolved through teamwork.
2. Construction input should ideally come from the construction team, which should be led by
a senior construction planning individual assigned to the project. This individual should be
able to articulate how construction will be realized. Another alternative is to get this input
from the construction entity that will be staffing the project. At the minimum, a consultant
with a strong construction planning background (including work packaging experience),
should be employed for these services.
Recommendations
1. Review project definition phase deliverables.
2. Review the sequence of construction and provide engineering feedback to construction,
so that the sequence can be refined. This plan will be the basis for a preliminary plan for
packaging the engineering effort. All major constraints should be addressed at this point,
including any resulting from the contracting and procurement plan.
3. The general arrangement/plot plan should be broken down into major project areas, as
it is typically done, with consideration given to materials of construction, specialty craft,
and other project needs and characteristics. (These major project areas are often called
construction work areas, or CWAs, a term that should not be confused with the more
specific construction work package, or CWP.) Once so configured, the CWPs and EWPs
should be defined as shown in Figure 4. (Note that at this stage, CWPs and EWPs may not
be fully developed; refinement will continue in the boundary development steps that follow.)
20
EWP2
EWP1 EWP3 EWP4 EWP5
CWP1 CWP2
EWP6
EWP7 EWP8 EWP9

CWP3 CWP4
SCOPE/PLOT PLAN
Figure 4. General Arrangement/Plot Plan
4. The engineering team must have a clear understanding of the construction IWP execution
philosophy, including the testing and turnover requirements that are identified as part of the
contracting plan. This understanding will help team members identify other terminal points
not required by engineering (e.g., engineering providing valves to isolate a piping system for
phased testing and/or start-up).
5. Issue a preliminary technology plan that includes data and data format requirements
for downstream use to minimize data translation or data rework. This type of planning
allows IWPs to be efficiently developed with emerging technology. For example, data
consideration for tagging and managing components in the field should include all project
disciplines, including engineering, project controls start-up, and construction.
6. Review the procurement plan to ensure that the schedule of vendor data requirements is
integrated into the overall work packaging plan.
21
Stage I – Schedule Refinement and WBS Development
Scope
This part of the process establishes the initial Level 2 schedule and establishes the work breakdown
structure (WBS) for the project. It is a culmination of the planning performed in previous steps.
Subsequent processes perform detailed planning that draw from the level two-schedule and WBS.
Assumptions
1. Project definition, construction planning, and engineering planning have been developed
to the point that a realistic Level 2 schedule is possible, along with a comprehensive WBS
(e.g., sequence, areas, sizes have all been identified in the project execution planning).
2. Procurement expertise is available to support definition of the Level 2 schedule. Key long
lead-time items have been identified, and schedules can be accommodated in the Level 2
schedule.
3. Some thought has been given to size of typical CWPs for this project (i.e., the project has
been broken up into logical chunks of reasonable size).
4. There is a moderately detailed breakout of project work hours that will be considered for
resource-loading a Level 2 schedule.
Recommendations
1. Owner, engineering, and construction should be involved in the WBS development.
2. The WBS must fit with work packaging progression; all reporting must be aligned.
3. There must be alignment with the owner’s need for a special breakout of cost.
4. There must be alignment with contracting strategy.
5. There must be alignment with any areas that will have early start-up.
6. Owner operations requirements (identified in planning) should also be accommodated in
the WBS and Level 2 schedule (e.g., timing of steam line tie-ins).
7. Prepare an IWP release plan. Use initial scope of work to estimate the rough number of
IWPs per initial area/CWP/bulk of project scope.
8. Prepare the Level 2 schedule for work packaging by discipline for engineering, by
commodity for procurement (e.g., pipe valves and fittings as one grouping), and by
discipline for construction.
9. The Level 2 schedule should be resource-loaded as much as possible, with the best
numbers available—even if they are preliminary. This allows the indications of the level of
effort to be reviewed.
10. The Level 2 schedule should reflect the execution plan for the project.
11. An initial set of turnover systems and their codes should be determined during this part of
the process.
22
Stage I – CWP Boundary Development
Scope
The objective of this process is to explain the development and execution of construction work
packages (CWPs) in the early stages of the project. A CWP is a grouping or breakdown of work
with logical geographical limits. The planning team determines the size of this package, taking into
consideration the ability to plan, organize, and identify constraints for this group of work. A CWP can
be considered a project within a project—or several projects within a project—and is developed to
enable the planning effort to view the work at an intermediate level. The goal of CWP development is
to enable the later development of the more detailed installation work packages (IWP).
Assumptions
Assumptions for this process are engineering deliverables, work processes, project execution
philosophies, and organizational considerations that should be in place to effectively develop the
CWP boundaries.
1. There is a commitment of the personnel required to successfully implement the workface

planning process.
2. Considerations have been made regarding which industry technologies will be utilized (i.e.,
work packaging software).
3. Considerations have been made for the technical integration of data into the technology or
tool used.
4. Organization of the planning team has been finalized, including roles and responsibilities.
5. The team’s definition of CWP has been developed and adopted.
6. A list of deliverables or content has been identified for the CWP.
7. The following key engineering deliverables are available:
• plot plan of general arrangement drawing (early revision)
• major equipment list
• piping line list (equipment, line, and instrument lists)
• construction schedule
• 3D model (if applicable)
• P&ID (if applicable).
8. Material specifications have been determined.

9. Competent construction professional are in place, with knowledge from similar construction
projects.
10. A high-level WBS has been developed.
11. There is communication with engineering work packaging team/process.
23
Recommendations
The first step of the CWP development is boundary identification, i.e., the determination of
geographical boundaries or limits. This process is driven by the following factors:
• physical location of the work
• physical constraints
• safe work practices
• equipment and material delivery constraints
• workforce distribution
• construction knowledge and best practices
• common construction methods.
A common approach is to base the CWP boundary on a piece of major equipment, section of
pipe rack, or natural geographical break. The CWP boundary limits should align with the higher-level
WBS structure developed in the preceding part of the process. Once the CWP boundary limits are
finalized, scope, schedule, and budget should be developed for each CWP. As with the construction
planning process—and as should be consistent throughout the work packaging process—provisions
to accommodate system turnover/commissioning must be considered.
1. Work breakdown structure

The project WBS should be established all the way down to the discipline level prior to the
CWP boundary development process. The CWP boundaries should align with the WBS to
facilitate the progressing process. If, for example, the WBS is designed by area and the CWP
is designed by system, it will be difficult if not impossible to relate the CWP to the schedule.
The CWPs must be readily able to be rolled into the established WBS.
2. Plot plan or general arrangement drawings

A general arrangement drawing is necessary for an effective CWP boundary development
process. This document will be used as the roadmap for establishing boundary limits. The layout
drawing should be complete to the point that it locates majority of process equipment and all
major structures. Although this is a construction-driven process, engineering management
should be represented during this process. This representation ensures that engineering
understands the reasoning for establishing the boundary limits, and is able to identify any
potential constraints to the proposed boundary limits. To the point that it is practical, the
CWP boundary limits should be incorporated into the detailed engineering deliverables. (It is
important to note that CWPs are often developed by discipline within an area of the site; as such,
these correspond closely to EWP development by discipline. This is consistent with Figure 4
above. However, if CWPs are developed by discipline, it is possible for the arrangement of
CWPs to physically overlap across (but not within) disciplines. Thus, the arrangement shown
in Figure 4 is correct, but should be considered a discipline-level arrangement within a project
or construction work area defined in the planning process.)
24
3. Construction plan
The construction plan developed during the construction planning process should be further
developed and defined through the inclusion of the CWP boundary limits and the plan for
incorporating these boundary limits into the work packaging process. It is imperative to specify
how scope, schedule, and budget will be developed at the CWP boundary level and how their
development will be integrated with the project controls plan for work packaging.
4. Contracting/procurement execution plan

As with the process of amending the construction plan, the further development and definition
of the contracting/procurement execution plan should incorporate CWP boundary limits. During
the CWP boundary development process, it is important to further define the various work
scopes that will be contracted—as well as any major purchases relative to CWP boundaries
(i.e., process equipment and commodities). Additionally, it will be necessary at this point to
further define how the various contractors’ CWP-level work packaging processes will be
incorporated into the overall project plan. It is also imperative to work closely with the project
controls manager to ensure uniformity and standardization for all subcontractors, in order
to readily integrate with the master project controls process. The specific work packaging
requirements should be written into every subcontract and major purchase order, including
formatting, level of detail, and frequency.
5. Sequence of installation
Once the CWP boundaries have been established and the scopes and budgets have been
defined, sequencing for the execution of the CWPs will need to be formulated. This is the next
step in further refining the project schedule. More detailed scheduling and resource-loading
will take place in the next part of the process (i.e., the schedule development process), with
general sequencing and/or prioritizing taking place in this part. The CWPs will add more detail
to the WBS that was developed in the preceding step. This will facilitate a smooth transition to
the schedule development process. Engineering should also participate in this process, since
there may be engineering constraints and, thus, difficulty in accommodating the sequence
requested by construction.
6. Available craft workers

Identifying at a high level the necessary craft workforce by discipline, including support craft
services for each CWP, and then assessing the availability of these resources are key in the
early planning stages—specifically at the CWP level. In addition, consideration should be
given to craft saturation levels, the stacking of trades, and the effectively deployment of a
large workforce.
7. Geographical layout of systems/areas

Although construction work will be by area, acknowledgment of how the process systems
interface with the CWPs is essential for the planning of the completion phase.
25
8. Materials of construction
As the CWPs are defined, it is necessary to have the material specifications from engineering
available for inclusion in each CWP. These will typically be grouped by discipline, and will include
every material specification required within each CWP. Knowing the material requirements will
also help in sequencing and schedule development if unique and/or long-lead material items
are required (e.g., certain alloy piping materials and many process equipment items).
9. Client/contractor contract milestones

As the CWP boundaries are established, it is important to consider any possible contractual
time constraints so that they can be easily identified, expedited, and progressed. In many
cases, a contractual milestone requirement (e.g., “STG on turning gear”) falls within a CWP
(T/G Area) and needs to be easily identified and progressed in the work packaging process.
10. System turnover sequence

During the CWP boundary development process, it is important to accommodate the need
to assign system turnover designations to each item in each work package. As the project
transitions from a construction execution to a system turnover execution, it is imperative that
the work package plan anticipate and accommodate this need. It is possible, and even likely,
that two line numbers may be in the same work package and in a separate system turnover
package.
Stage I – EWP Boundary Development
Scope
The objective of the EWP boundary development process, with respect to effective work packaging,
is to further define the engineering into workable packages that can be engineered separately, or that
can be scheduled to support engineering workflow. Consideration of engineering constraints such
as those dictated by the design criteria is critical to ensuring that the engineering can be performed
logically and efficiently. These boundaries are consistent with construction and capture the installation
plan constraints. The scope of each EWP is then clearly shown on the general arrangements, P&IDs,
overall single-line diagrams, and the control system architecture, as applicable. The procurement
plan is then updated to make sure that engineering and procurement are coordinated to support the
installation sequence. This effort should be closely coordinated with CWP boundary development.
Construction and engineering leads must interact closely to develop a reasonable plan. The engineering,
procurement, and construction plans will evolve into an overall project execution plan.
The ultimate deliverables should clearly identify tie-in points and provide a preliminary list of
engineering deliverables by package from engineering and any sub-contractors. The result of this
process will be a detailed plan for the design engineering work. This plan will lead to the development
26
of the Level 3 schedule for the engineering, procurement, and delivery of major equipment and the
balance of plant equipment for the project. At the end of this phase the scope of work, delivery schedule
for equipment, and engineering deliverables should be clearly understood by the construction team.
This will allow further refinement of the work packaging plan for the field.
Assumptions
1. This work is performed by the design engineer.
2. Project Level 2 schedule has been signed off and approved by client.
3. The contracting plan is developed to clearly define the overall strategy for the installation.
4. The procurement plan and process, including delivery durations/lead-times are well
understood for major equipment and materials of construction.
Recommendations
1. The EWPs must follow an approved project standard that correlates to the WBS. This
standard allows for a process of revision control, and permits monitoring of the creation
and completion of the EWPs.
2. The procurement plan should include a plan for how commodity fabrication will be
achieved. This includes consideration for modular construction. The benefit of offsite
fabrication is weighed against the cost for its delivery, handling, and lifting into final
locations.
3. The engineering plans should be updated as the project matures, and should include
construction feedback. Ideally, engineering plans should be settled at the start of detailed
engineer, with the awareness that, as the project matures, the ability to change the
engineering plan diminishes without major rework.
27
Modularization and Advanced Work Packaging

Modularization can be easily incorporated into a project utilizing Advanced Work Packaging. To
do so, CWP and EWP boundaries should coincide with module boundaries. Once the boundaries
have been defined, there are two fundamental considerations to complete the incorporation
of modules into the AWP strategy. The first is to develop packages for module assembly using
the principles of CWPs and EWPs.
Module assembly packages being developed using the principles of AWP will contain CWPs
and supporting EWPs similar to those developed for work at a construction site. The CWPs for
module fabrication should not cross module boundaries, allowing each module to separately
progress engineering, material deliveries, fabrication and assembly while tracking CWP and EWP
constraints and open fabrication tasks for each module. Ensuring that modules are contained
with their own CWP facilitates construction planning by progressing fabrication and reporting
on CWP constraints by individual modules, which feeds into CWPs being developed for field
installation. While it may not be necessary to break the fabrication down into smaller IWPs for
small or simple modules, it is possible to extend the IWP philosophy to the module fabrication
process for large or complex modules. Once the modules have been broken down in this
fashion, the remaining AWP process can be directly applied to progressing and completion of
engineering and fabrication.
The second fundamental consideration to apply AWP to modular construction is the creation of
CWPs and EWPs for the field installation of the modules. These work packages should focus
on the field requirements for installation of the modules and do not necessarily need to be
separated by individual modules. A critical component of CWPs addressing module installation
is to include the fabrication CWPs as well as any related field installation CWPs as related CWPs
in the package for proper identification of constraints in the planning and scheduling process.
Including assembly CWPs in this manner identifies ties between assembly and field CWPs and
ensures the modules are scheduled from early engineering through project completion, including
the assembly and transportation time. As with the CWPs created for module fabrication, once
the project has been fundamentally planned considering these requirements, the remaining AWP
process is directly applicable for progressing and completion of engineering and construction.
CII Implementation Resource 283-2, Industrial Modularization, describes detailed considerations

for effective use of modularization. Its recommendations for early planning are consistent with
the recommended processes of this volume.
28
Stage II – Schedule Development
Scope
As shown in Figure 5, the schedule development process establishes the Level 3 schedule for
engineering and procurement, and the preliminary Level 3 schedule for construction.
STAGE II
Detailed Engineering
Detailed
Schedule
Engineering Construction
Development
Schedule
Detailed Level 3: Execute EWP Standard Final Level 3

E – by discipline, by EWP
P – by commodity,
by construction
need date
Preliminary Level 3:
C – by CWP
Figure 5. Stage II – Detailed Engineering
Assumptions
1. CWP boundary development and EWP boundary development have been completed to the
point that there can be a realistic engineering and procurement Level 3 schedule.
2. Engineering, procurement, and construction expertise is available to support definition of
the Level 3 schedule.
3. The schedule identifies the CWPs.
4. A detailed breakout of engineering and procurement work hours for the project is available,
and it enables considerations for resource-loading a Level 3 schedule.
Recommendations
1. The owner, engineering, and construction should be involved with the development of the
schedule.
2. The WBS must fit with progressing for work packaging; all reporting must be aligned.
3. There must be alignment with areas that will have early start-up.
4. Owner operations requirements (identified in planning) should also be accommodated in
the WBS and in the Level 3 schedule (e.g., timing of steam line tie-ins).
29
5. The preliminary IWP release plan that was developed in Stage I, Schedule Refinement and
WBS Development, must be updated.
6. Level-three schedules for work packaging by discipline and by EWP must be prepared for
engineering; for procurement, the Level 3 schedule should be prepared by commodity and
by construction need date; for construction it should be prepared by CWP.
7. The Level 3 schedule should be resource-loaded for engineering and procurement, with
preliminary hours for construction CWP.
Stage II – Engineering
Scope
To achieve effective work packaging in the detailed engineering stage of the project, the engineering
process must create the design engineering documents necessary to support project execution in
accordance with engineering planning. During this stage, construction and engineering leads must
continue to interact closely to implement the plan developed during the earlier part of the process.
The deliverables from this stage will be the key design documents (CWPs)—used by construction for
any field work packaging efforts—that are delivered in accordance with the Level 3 schedule.
Assumption
1. The schedule development assumptions also apply to this part of Stage II.
Recommendations
1. The construction and engineering teams should maintain open communications during the
design phase.
2. All engineering deliverables need to be clearly mapped to EWPs and CWPs. Changes need
to be managed to assess their impact on CWPs.
30
Stage II – Detailed Construction Schedule
Scope
The detailed construction schedule process finalizes the Level 3 schedule with construction detail.
Assumptions
1. Engineering is complete to the level that will support a Level 3 construction schedule.
2. A detailed breakout of construction work hours for the project is available, and it enables
the resource-loading of a Level 3 schedule.
Recommendations
1. The WBS must fit with progressing for work packaging; all reporting must be aligned.
2. Start-up scheduling requirements must be reflected in the schedule and in the IWP release
plan.
3. Owner operations requirements (identified in planning) should be confirmed and they
should be reflected in the WBS and Level 3 schedule.
4. The Level 3 schedule should be resource-loaded for construction activities.
31
Stage III – Construction

Each of five separate blocks in the overview flow chart shown in Figure 6 contains key elements of
the IWP life cycle. The blocks are enumerated, and their respective ties to subsequent flow diagrams
are shown. These subsequent flow diagrams further break down the essential IWP processes, from
1) creation to 2) document control to 3) issuance to the field and 4) control in the field, and, finally, to
5) closeout. The IWP life cycle incorporates industry best practices and data recently compiled by
members of RT 272 at active jobsites through a work packaging program. Each of the five life cycle
elements is shown in detail in the next section in separate flow charts.
STAGE III
Construction
Create IWP Send sequence

Create Monitor and content of
IWPs release
schedule constraints IWP to Document
Control
Regular superintendent
Notify required
2 Document
meeting to identify Control
support trades
task groupings
1 IWP Creation Interface
Hard-copy
IWP created
Close out
5 IWP
Report progress Closeout
Issue IWP to
field once
Report IWPs constraints are
that are satisfied
complete
Monitor
Leave in field Yes completion Field
Remove items
until Complete status in executes
not completed
completion No the field the work
4 Control of the 3 Issuance

IWP in the Field to the Field
Figure 6. Stage III – Construction: Overview of IWP Life Cycle Flow Charts
32
2.3.2 Installation Work Package Life Cycle Flow Charts and Narrative
Introduction
Installation work packaging (IWP) is a process incorporating the communication, constraint checking/
validation, and final documentation needed by the ultimate customer and by the crew at the workface
for the successful performance of the prescribed work. The IWP process adds predictability to the
project and enhances productivity. For IWP to be effectively implemented, the IWP life cycle process
consists of the five distinct steps detailed in the following flow charts:
1. IWP Creation
2. Document Control Interface
3. Issuance of IWP to the Field
4. Control of the IWP in the Field
5. IWP Closeout.
Using the IWP life cycle flow charts
The set of flow charts presented below details the IWP life cycle. These five life cycle charts are
illustrated in Figure 6, the Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart, Stage III – Construction.
Each flow chart internally links its main activities, and is also linked by arrows to the other flow charts.
The arrows between the five flow charts are green when they represent an activity that is feeding into
a flow chart; the red arrows represent activity that is emanating from a flow chart.
The IWP life cycle is broken down into these five distinct flow charts to highlight the interfaces
between processes and integral steps within the overall process. The IWP overview flow chart provides
a high-level description of the IWP process that is further detailed in Flow Charts 1 through 5. Flow
Charts 1 through 5 should be read sequentially, starting at Flow Chart 1, IWP Creation, and ending in
Flow Chart 5, IWP Closeout. Each flow chart is accompanied by its respective explanatory narrative.
33
Flow Chart 1: IWP Creation
Installation Work Package Life Cycle

1 IWP Creation
Identify IWP Create IWP Assemble Create IWP

content, identifiers IWPs in schedule based
limits, and and add to electronic on level 3
boundaries IWP log format
meeting to identify Send updated
log to Doc See #2 IWP Doc
task groupings Control (B)
Remove and Control Advanced
repackage notification to
support trades
See #3 Issuance to based on IWP
Field (A), #4 Control of IWP release plan
in the Field (A)
Monitor all
Leave task in Leave in constraints based
package or on IWP look
remove ahead schedule
Work
Safety Construction
Quality IFC Pre- Access Craft Constraints
and Schedule Materials Equipment Scaffolding
Control Drawings Fabrication and Availability to monitor
Permiting and Tools
Laydown
Have
NO constraints YES See #2 IWP Doc
been met by Control (A)
schedule?
Figure 7. IWP Life Cycle Flow Chart 1 – IWP Creation
Scope of the IWP creation process
This process is to facilitate the creation of new IWPs and to efficiently and effectively enable
changes and updates in existing IWPs. When initially creating an IWP, it is advisable to create it first in
a digital form. This may simply mean adding all documents or links to documents required for the IWP
into one folder, in a file structure built using an established file tracking/numbering system. IWP folder
34
logs should be created and updated with IWP names in order to be transmitted to document control;
document control personnel can use these logs to create placeholders in the file management system.
These placeholders can later be populated with the IWP contents as controlled documentation. Creating
a file structure and maintaining all documents for the IWP in one digital location will allow for earlier
creation of IWPs; it will also enable their modification at a later stage. If IWPs are issued prematurely,
it becomes difficult to make changes or additions when revisions and scope changes are issued.
Once the IWP scope is identified, and required information is gathered into a digital folder, it
becomes possible to schedule and sequence IWPs on the basis of their tracking numbers and to roll
them up to the Level 3 schedule. When a rough schedule and sequence is in place, crafts should be
notified of the requirements to support this initial plan. After the initial allocations have been made,
constraints should be monitored. Other constraints that were considered at the time of schedule and
sequencing should also be monitored (e.g., safety, permitting, quality control, IFC drawings, materials,
prefabrication requirements, work access, laydown, craft availability, construction equipment, and
specialty tools).
Constraints should be monitored on the basis of the schedule, and they should be considered
prior to issuing the IWPs as a hard copy. This may require multiple monitoring passes, as will be shown
and discussed in Flow Chart 3, Issuance of IWP to the Field. (See Figure 9.) During these monitoring
passes, it may be deemed necessary to move items from one IWP to another. The ability to move
tasks between IWPs is easier in a virtual environment. Indeed, it is advisable to maintain all IWPs in a
virtual environment until the last possible moment, usually one to two weeks prior to IWP execution.
This recommended one-to-two week period should be used to gather signatures and authorizations
prior to IWP execution.
Assumptions
1. Trade-specific workface planners are in place to create the IWPs.
2. Workface planners have appropriate hardware/software available for creating IWPs.
3. A process has been established for workface planners to work closely with Document
Control.
4. A functional Level 3 schedule has been created.
5. A regularly scheduled workface planner/superintendent meeting is in place to address IWP
scope and sequence.
6. The IWP creation process has support of management.
35
Recommendations
1. Workface planners should start creating virtual IWPs as soon as the Level 3 schedule has
been issued.
2. All virtually created IWPs should be backed up in a safe location.
3. Workface packaging software should be used to aid in the IWP creation process;
consideration should be given to size and complexity of project.
4. IWPs should not be put into hard-copy format until one to two weeks prior to execution
and/or until known constraints have been addressed.
Information Requirements
1. Changes to the Level 3 schedule should be communicated with project controls.
2. Workface planners should have access to most current document revisions.
3. Once the scope of the IWP is identified, the documents required for support should
be added to the IWP log (the IWP log is created by the workface planners) and then
transmitted to the document control team. This will allow document control personnel
to notify the workface planners of any revision changes to technical documents within a
specific IWP.
36
Flow Chart 2: Document Control Interface

2 Document Control Interface
Applicable IWP hard copy is
Obtain
See #1 IWP superintendant created by
remaining
creation (A) vets the IWP Planning
signatures
Content and Plan
Electronic Hard-copy IWP is

Document list is turned over to
sent to Document Document Control
Control
Doc Control
Document Doc Control Doc Control creates
loads IWP content
See #1 IWP Control loads verifies two hard copies
into system
creation (B) log into system document filing one as
using place
to use as place revision and master
holders created
holders signatures
from Log
Doc Control
Doc Control monitors the transmits two
electronic document list for each See #3 IWP
hard copies to
IWP and transmits any revision Planning for Issuance to the
notices to Planning field (A)
issuing
Figure 8. IWP Life Cycle Flow Chart 2 – Document Control Interface
Scope of the document control process
In the next step, close coordination with document control personnel is required to maintain an
accurate and up-to-date IWP. (See Figure 8.) When the first hard copy of an IWP is created, a list of
technical documents should be added to the log and transmitted to the document control team, along
with the first signed-off hardcopy of each IWP. Following are several actions related to document control:
1. Ensure that the transmitted hard copy has all the latest revisions of technical documentation
and appropriate signatures.
2. Update the log containing the list of technical documents for any revisions that may be
done to the IWP prior to and after issuance. If any revisions do occur, document control
personnel will notify the responsible workface planner and superintendent. After the
37
document control team has completed these tasks, the planning department should then
control and monitor the IWPs both before they are issued to the field and while they are in
the field, to ensure completion.
3. Create two more hard copies of the IWP. The original will be filed as the IWP master, and
the two copies will be transmitted to the planning department for issuance.
4. Upon issuance of the IWP to the field, both copies should be transmitted to the
superintendent; the first copy is meant for the superintendent’s records, and the second
copy is meant for execution in the field. See Flow Chart #3 for information on these
controls.
Assumptions
1. A suitable document control system/set of procedures is in place to monitor any technical
document changes.
2. The planning department controls issuance of IWPs to the field, and notifies document
control personnel.
3. The appropriate number of craft-specific workface planners is in place to facilitate this
effort.
Recommendations
1. The creation of the IWP should be well documented in a procedure that receives input from
the planning department and the document control team.
2. IWPs should be controlled formally through the use of transmittals.
3. Superintendents must be in full support of this process.
4. Document control personnel must issue a complete and comprehensive physical IWP
folder, not segmented or loose documents.
1. The IWP technical document log (created in Flow Chart #1) should be created and
maintained by the workface planner. To do this, the workface planner should have access
to the document control system, or use a spreadsheet that is regularly transmitted to the
document control team.
2. The document control management system can easily flag any IWP revision (on the basis of
the technical document list for the IWPs). This requires incorporating the IWP nomenclature
into the document control system to enable the assignment of the technical documents to
each IWP. (See Flow Chart #1 “send updated log to Document Control”.)
3. Document revisions to an IWP should be transmitted to the planning department from the
document control team.
38
Flow Chart 3: Issuance of IWP to the Field

3 Issuance to the Field
See #2 Document Planner files
Planner receives
Control Interface (A) both copies of IWP
IWP from Doc
See #4 Control of Control until constraints are
IWP in the Field (A) satisfied
Work Final
Safety Construction
Equipment Scaffolding Verification
Quality IFC Pre- Access Craft
and Schedule Materials
Control Drawings fabrication and Availability of
Permiting and Tools
Laydown Constraints
YES Have all

constraints been
satisfied?
Release IWP to Send confirma-
applicable tion of start to
support craft Is
superintendant NO it feasible to YES Monitor
hold packages constraints
as is?
NO
See #1 IWP Creation (A)
Regularly report See #4 Control of IWP

Field executes
progress on prede- in the Field (A)
the work
termined interval
in IWP
Figure 9. IWP Life Cycle Flow Chart 3 – IWP Issuance to the Field
Scope of the issuance to the field process
Once advanced notice has been given, soft allocations should be made to support crafts, and
constraints should be monitored against the schedule to ensure the timely execution of the work
package. Hard copies of the installation work package (IWP) should be issued back to the workface
planner so that he or she can monitor constraints and verify that they have been addressed and/or
eliminated. The workface planner should complete a cover checklist confirming that known constraints
have been handled prior to issuance.
39
With the confirmed status of the constraints determined by the workface planner, the package will
be ready for issue in hard copy format to the applicable superintendent for execution. The workface
planner should make all necessary hard notifications to support craft. In the event that the workface
planner determines that some constraints have not been addressed and that they will affect the
execution of the package, a determination should be made, based on the level of impact, to either
return the package to document control personnel or to place it on hold pending further monitoring of
constraints. Once issued, the superintendent should review and coordinate the execution of the work
with the general foreman, foreman, and craft. The superintendent, with support from the workface
planner, is responsible for follow-up on the execution and progress of the IWP.
Assumptions
1. The schedule for installation work packages is linked to project schedule so that schedule
updates and revisions will automatically provide updated information on the IWP schedule.
2. The workface planner and superintendent are responsible for signing off on constraints
status.
3. A comprehensive material controls and tracking system, as well as a document control
system, is in place to assist in constraint monitoring and packaging.
Recommendations
1. To avoid build-up of packages, do not issue IWPs too far in advance of scheduled
execution. This will also help prevent the use of outdated information.
2. Appropriate stakeholders should sign off and verify that constraints have been addressed.
For example, the equipment manager should ensure that all necessary equipment has been
received at site prior to issuance of IWP.
1. It is necessary to have reliable and accurate schedule updates, and to link them to IWP
release dates.
2. It is necessary to have reliable data on potential constraints, e.g., constraints on safety and
permitting, quality control, IFC drawings, schedule, materials, prefabrication, work access
and laydown, craft availability, construction equipment and tools, and scaffolding.
40
Flow Chart 4: Control of IWP in the Field

4 Control of IWP in the Field
Return IWP to Planning files Confirm See #5 IWP
Planning complete progress report Closeout (A)
IWPs
Completed
Items
Remove
Monitor the Removed
unfinished
status until Items See #1
See #3 IWP Issuance tasks for
complete IWP Creation (A)
to the Field (A) repackaging
YES YES Repack

Is Is the
Planning the IWP Is it
NO NO IWP to be
records 100% complete feasible for
held or unfinished
progress from within scheduled IWP to remain in
items to be
field time frame? the field?
repackaged?
Hold
Monitor IWP
Return IWP to until hold is
Planning removed or See #3 IWP
constraint is Issuance to Field (A)
resolved
Figure 10. IWP Life Cycle Flow Chart 4 – Control of IWP in the Field
Scope of the Control of IWP in the Field process
After constraints have been addressed and/or eliminated, and the field crews have begun execution,
control of the IWP should be managed by the responsible superintendent. Should any constraints
resurface (e.g., a design change could be issued by the engineer, or rework could result from deficient
quality), the viability of retaining the IWP in the field must be assessed. Impacts to continuing work
could be among the constraints previously listed (e.g., schedule delay or inadequate work access),
as could other issues such as out-of-sequence work or frustration within the craft. After careful
evaluation of potential or actual impacts and risks, the responsible superintendent, in coordination
with the planning group, should determine the feasibility of continuing work on an IWP. Monitoring
41
and progress reporting will continue until closure of the IWP. Conversely, a partially completed IWP
will be closed due to constraints that are deemed too challenging to overcome, and any incomplete
work will be repackaged.
Assumptions
1. Regular coordination meetings are held with other discipline superintendents and workface
planners.
2. Appropriate interim progress monitoring is available.
Recommendations
1. To prevent delay to the IWP, project engineers should be readily available to assist with
design and quality constraints.
2. Progress should be monitored on a daily basis.
Information Requirement
1. Most current design information.
42
Flow Chart 5: IWP Closeout

5 IWP Closeout
Input IWP
Confirm progress in
quantities Project
Controls
See #4 Control in
the Field (A)
Does IWP NO Notify Document Control

contain redlines or of completion and no
notes? change to master Document Control
updates and
archives
YES completed master
Transmit all notes and
IWP
copies of redlines to Doc
Control for update of
master
Send redlines to field

engineer for inclusion in
master set
Field engineer Document

performs Control updates
required updates master set
Figure 11. IWP Life Cycle Flow Chart 5 – IWP Closeout
Scope of the IWP Closeout process
After an IWP has been appropriately executed in the field, it is necessary to ensure that the IWP is
closed properly. This closeout process includes two types of documentation, necessary for as-built
documentation requirements: 1) the confirmation of installed quantities and 2) the proper recording of
installation deviations. The planning department should work with the project controls team to ensure
that quantities installed for each IWP are accurately captured. Additionally, to accurately develop as-built
drawings the planning department should work with the document control team and, if necessary, the
field engineering team to identify, amend, and document any installation deviations from the Approved
for Construction (AFC) drawings used in each IWP.
43
Assumptions
1. There are established processes and procedures that address how to capture, report, and
validate installed quantities.
2. There are established processes and procedures that address as-built documentation
requirements.
Recommendations
1. Assign specific responsibilities to select individuals for the closeout of IWPs.
2. Communicate the requirements for verification of installed quantities and
as-built drawings to Closeout IWPs.
3. Conduct periodic internal audits to ensure that the IWP closeout process is working and is
accurately collecting and validating the information.
4. Continue to improve and document the IWP closeout process by looking for ways to
increase accuracy, reduce information collection errors and redundancy, and develop a
specific lesson learned/best practices plan to shorten the closeout time.
5. Capture lessons learned on the IWP.
1. Actual IWP schedule performance.
2. Evaluation of actual IWP craft productivity against budget.
3. Red-line information for IWP.
4. QA/QC sign-off, if applicable for IWP.
44
2.3.3 Recommendations
To help organizations implement work packaging—from project definition through design,
procurement, and workface packaging—RT 272 has compiled the following recommendations and
categorized them per phase of the work packaging life cycle:
Recommendations for Project Definition and Planning

1. To support packaging of design and construction, early scope definition documents should
include construction sequencing, phases, and limits.
2. Early allowance should be made to develop high-level divisions of responsibility to support
the contracting plan and the procurement process.
3. A detailed project execution plan should be developed at the earliest stages of planning,
and should include basic construction sequencing planning.
4. To support downstream work packaging, early decisions should be made relevant to the
level of detail required in engineering deliverables.
5. A responsibility matrix should be developed that tracks the work packaging process
through the planning, design, procurement, and execution phases.
6. The construction sequence should be integrated into the engineering plan.
7. Physical site constraints, procurement constraints, environmental constraints, permitting
constraints should be incorporated into CWP and EWP development.
8. An ongoing feedback loop should be established between construction planning and
engineering planning so that both groups proceed in alignment with work packaging
planning.
9. A Level 2 schedule should be developed to reflect the construction execution plan, the
engineering plan, the established boundaries, and any constraints.
Recommendations for the Installation Work Package

1. Work should always be packaged in IWPs.
2. IWPs should always identify the work to be completed by the team, and should contain all
technical data, drawings, and specifications.
3. All IWPs should identify the general sequence of work and the labor necessary to complete
the work.
4. All IWPs should identify all required materials necessary to complete the work.
5. Workface planners should start creating virtual IWPs as soon as the Level 3 schedule has
been issued.
6. All virtually created IWPs should be backed up in a safe location.
45
7. IWPs should be retained in virtual format and should not be issued in hard-copy format until
one to two weeks prior to execution, and/or until known constraints have been addressed.
8. IWPs should not be issued too far in advance, since this can cause stacks of unissued
packages to build up in the field.
9. The IWP process should be well documented in a written procedure, with input from
Planning and Document Control.
10. IWP issuance and status should be controlled through the formal use of transmittals.
11. IWPs released by Document Control should be complete and bound, i.e., no partial IWPs
should be released and no loose documents from any IWP should be released.
12. All IWPs should identify all required specialty tools, scaffolding, and construction
equipment necessary to complete the work.
13. All IWPs should identify all relevant special conditions.
14. All IWPs should include or reference all quality control and NDE requirements.
15. Appropriate stakeholders should sign off on issued IWPs, confirming that constraints have
been met.
16. IWP should include or reference all major execution risk response plans.
17. All IWPs should identify their interdependencies.
18. The planner should monitor issued IWP progress in the field on a daily basis.
19. Specific responsibilities should be assigned to key individuals for the correct closeout of an
issued IWP.
20. Requirements for verification of as-built quantities, work hours, and red-lines should be
communicated effectively for proper IWP closeout.
21. Periodic audits should be conducted to ensure that the IWP closeout process is working
and is accurately collecting and validating planned versus actual data.
22. Lessons learned should being captured in the IWP closeout process.
23. Adequate controls should be in place to ensure that all resources required to complete
the IWP are identified, available prior to construction mobilization, and in place before IWP
release.
24. A dedicated planner should complete the IWP and sign off on it as ready before it is
released to crew.
25. The general area superintendent should have a sufficient backlog of ready-to-issue IWPs to
replace any scheduled IWP that is delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.
26. The requirement for workface planning should include the expectations of contractor/
subcontractor/planner and owner roles and responsibilities, and should be written into all
contracts and/or subcontracts.
46
Recommendations for Planners

1. Dedicated planner(s) should develop the IWPs.
2. All dedicated planners should have the experience as described in the job description that
is developed during the project definition phase.
3. Dedicated planners should be on the distribution list for all project documentation or should
have access to the latest information required for preparation of an IWP.
4. Work processes should be established to ensure that planners have access to the latest
information.
5. The information provided to the dedicated planners should be clear and complete.
Recommendations for EWP/CWP Release Plan and Approvals

1. A schedule should be developed, prior to the start of detailed engineering, for all
construction and engineering work packages (EWPs/CWPs), and must maintain both the
pre-determined path of construction and the engineering and procurement sequence to
support the construction plan.
2. Experienced construction personnel should approve the schedule, scope, sequence, and
timing of an EWP/CWP.
Recommendations for IWP Release Plan and Approvals

1. A schedule and release plan should be developed, for all field installation work packages
(IWP) based on the CWP.
2. General foremen, planners, and construction superintendents should review and agree to
the schedule, scope, sequence, and timing of the IWP.
3. Final approval of the schedule, scope, sequence, and timing of the IWP should be granted
by the construction superintendent or his or her designate.
Recommendations for Integration and Coordination of IWPs

1. Responsibility for integration planning should be determined to proactively resolve
anticipated conflicts between IWPs.
2. Responsibility for material coordination of an IWP should be assigned to a dedicated
coordinator(s).
3. The responsibility for any specialty tools and the coordination of construction equipment
required by the IWP should be assigned to a dedicated coordinator(s).
4. The tracking levels and coordination procedures should established for the planners,
general foremen, construction superintendent, and resource coordinators to drive
performance during the construction phase.
5. IWP Status (i.e., progress and cost) should be tracked in a visible way, and should include
completion of the IWP against targets.
Adequate management audits should be undertaken to ensure that the above rules are being followed.
47
2.4 Organizational Recommendations

The flow diagram in Figure 12 illustrates how workface planners should interact with other project
personnel on EPC-type projects. By extension, it also illustrates how departments need to work
collaboratively through each project phase—using workface packaging—to maintain the flow of
planned work at a level of detail sufficient to support eventual execution in the field. Instead of using
traditional planning, through which each department plans only its portion of the work once it finally
becomes engaged, departments should engage the planners earlier and at a higher level than usual.
(See Figure 12.)
Project Manager
Manager Manager
Engineers General Foreman
Superintendent
Discipline Leads
Workface
Planner
Procurement
Manager
Figure 12. High-level Engagement of the Workface Planner
To facilitate collaboration among departments, a lead workface planner should be assigned to the
project; this lead planner should possesses enough IWP experience to allow support of engineering,
construction, and procurement at the early planning stages. Benefits can only be realized if, as emphasized
in Section 1.3, there is a deliberate effort to plan within a framework that supports downstream IWPs.
48
Project Manager
Engineering Procurement Construction Project Controls

Manager Manager Manager Manager
Workface
Planner
Figure 13. Proposed Project Organization
Figure 13 indicates the need for a staff position for a workface planner, apart from other positions.
As noted in the discussion above, the workface planner function should not replace other positions
such as superintendent or foreman, but rather it should support them. The workface planning lead
will be involved in the project throughout the project life cycle. As the project moves to construction,
there will likely be a set of workface planners working under the lead and supporting construction.
It is important that these workface planners have field experience, or have strong support from field
personnel, to ensure that the design of installation work packages reflect field needs and constraints.
Depending on the organizational culture and operating procedures, the workface planner may report to
either the construction manager or the project controls manager. Figure 13 shows these possible chains
of command as dotted lines between the functions in a project organization chart. However, no matter
what the particulars of the organizational structure are, the workface planner shares information with
both construction and controls. Properly implemented, the organizational recommendations depicted in
Figures 12 and 13 are consistent with the recommendations from the process model discussed above.
49
Chapter 3: Summary
Because the industry is constantly challenged by the need to deliver capital projects safer,
better, faster, and more cost effectively. Additionally, due to the significant impact of possible cost
overruns on mega-projects, the imperative to predict outcomes and repeat processes becomes
more important—especially as we refine and develop new processes. The goal of this research was
to review the best practices, tools, and processes for work packaging, and then to develop a model
to improve field productivity during the execution of capital projects. Advanced work packaging has
the potential to improve all elements of the capital project delivery process, including predictability,
productivity, safety, and quality.
The work presented here represents the most recent research in this area. RT 272 built on the prior
work of many others, especially the efforts of the Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA).
The team developed a recommended better/best work packaging execution model, approach that
addresses work packaging from project planning through field execution. This model is supported by
case studies and interviews with work packaging experts.
As COAA succinctly states, “[work packaging is] about getting the right things to the right people
at the right time to save money and improve productivity.” This document summarizes the evidence
of the benefits of work packaging/workface planning in a number of settings, providing definitions, a
recommended execution model, associated implementation recommendations, tools for assessment,
and checklists. RT 272 believes these are the right tools to help firms move forward today with advanced
work packaging implementation.
Some high-level recommendations to move forward are as follows:

1. Recognize that all projects perform some level of work packaging, but that there is room for
improvement.
2. Don’t implement advanced work packaging mid-stream or without thought, preparation,
and commitment of adequate resources.
3. Thoroughly review existing practices against the model presented in this document; use the
audit and assessment tools presented in Volume II.
4. Prepare a roll-out plan for advanced work packaging. This includes education about
definitions and procedures. Commitment is important at all levels, especially among field
personnel.
5. While IWP procedures can be implemented without planning earlier in the lifecycle,
advanced work packaging provides more benefits when decisions are made at project
definition.
6. Alignment of engineering with construction is a likely area of improvement for most
projects. The processes and detailed recommendations contained in this document provide
a path forward for improvement in this area.
7. Measure the results and quality of implementation. Do not expect improvement without
thorough and consistent implementation. Do expect a learning curve.
51
References
Construction Industry Institute (CII) Research Team 83-6. (1988). Work Packaging for Project Control
(Research Summary 6-6). Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute.
Construction Industry Institute (CII) Research Team 244. (2009). Global Project Control and Management
Systems (Research Summary 244-1). Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute.
Construction Industry Institute (CII) Research Team 257 (2010). Materials Management Planning Guide
(Implementation Resource 257–3). Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute.
Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA) Workface-Planning Construction Work Package

Subcommittee. (2007). Construction Work Packages Best Practice? A Consensus. Edmonton,
Alberta: Construction Owners Association of Alberta.
Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA). (2007). “Workface Planning Construction

Scorecard.” Retrieved January 2010, from COAA Productivity Library: http://www.coaa.ab.ca/
Productivity/ProductivityLibrary.aspx
Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA). (2008). FIWP Checklists. Retrieved January 2010,
from COAA Productivity Library: http://www.coaa.ab.ca/Productivity/ProductivityLibrary.aspx
Jacobs Engineering. (2010). “Lessons Learned and Benefits Obtained.” COAA Workface Planning
Conference, December 2010, Alberta, CA.
McTague, B., Jergeas, G. (2002). “Productivity improvements on Alberta major construction projects,
Phase I – Back to Basics.” Construction Productivity Improvement Report, Project Evaluation
Tool, May 2002.
Slootman, T. (2007). “Planning of Mega-Projects: Influence of Execution Planning on Project Performance.”

MA Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Ryan, G. (2009). Schedule for Sale: Workface Planning for Construction Projects. AuthorHouse:
Bloomington, Indiana.
53
Appendix A: Case Study
The team conducted several case studies of companies within the industrial and commercial
construction sectors in order to explore the current workface planning practices currently implemented
within the construction industry. The following abbreviated case study describes one company’s
experience developing and implementing workface planning through formalized work packages.
Company Overview
The company studied is a medium-sized, privately owned global EPC firm with decades of operating
experience. The company services a diverse set of industries, including the refining, petrochemical and
chemical, power, and infrastructure sectors. It usually operates under an EPC contract as the prime
general contractor. Most projects performed by the company are larger than $150 million.
Work Packaging Practices
Workface planning has been a focus for the company for 10 to 15 years, but new tools that facilitate
work packaging, such as 3D modeling software, have been implemented only in the last three to four
years. Workface planning—which includes the creation and execution of Installation Work Packages
(IWPs)—is implemented for piping across all company projects, due to the critical nature of piping on
project cost and schedule. The company plans to expand workface planning practices to structural
work in the near future.
As seen in Figure 14, planning currently occurs at multiple levels of the construction team. The figure
shows that the levels of planning detail increase toward the right as those performing the planning get
closer to the workface. Construction personnel on the right of the figure, including the craft planners,
foremen, and crew, depend on the planning efforts that have preceded them to successfully plan
and implement their own work. Craft superintendents and general foremen are responsible for the
boundary development, scheduling, and execution of IWPs in their respective crafts. The craft planner
develops the physical IWP documents, with input from the craft superintendent and general foremen,
and provides coordination and support for the crews.
55
Construction Project Scheduler/ Craft General Craft

Foreman Crew
Manager Superintendent Planner Superintendent Foreman Planner
Overall project execution planning
Work package development and selection

(i.e., look-ahead schedule, resource planning)
Refinement of plan activities with each craft to

support work package scheduling
Planning of craft activities to support execution plan
Daily activity and

task safety planning
Figure 14. Levels of Project Planning
The development of IWPs begins with a project schedule review. The logical ties of scheduled
activities drive the area availability and material deliveries that are needed to support workface planning.
The craft planner and craft superintendent review the construction areas and the overall design to
determine the best methods and practices to use when assigning activities to IWPs. Open lines of
communication between the warehouse manager, material manager, technical service manager, and
other craft supervisors are key to the planning process.
After the construction activities have been divided into appropriate IWPs, the planners work
toward creating the physical IWPs. The IWPs contain the documentation necessary for successful
completion of work, e.g., steps to complete the work, plan view drawings, current ISOs, model shots,
and supporting documents. (IWPs are typically 25 to 30 pages long.) The process of compiling an IWP
generally takes a planner two to three hours, but this relatively brief up-front research and planning
can save a craftsperson 10 to 12 hours of hunting for information in the field.
The company utilizes modeling software to create IWPs by assigning the desired activities or
components associated with an ISO to a single IWP. In some instances, planners will break up an
ISO into more than one IWP in order to allow the craftsperson to work in one area, or to reduce the
size of the IWP in terms of work hours. The ideal size of an IWP is the amount of work one crew can
complete in one to two weeks.
Following the creation of an IWP in the modeling software, the selected ISOs and associated
materials are linked to the IWP in the company’s proprietary materials management system (MMS).
This linking allows materials to be allocated and reserved for IWPs on the basis of priority when they
arrive to site. The assignment of ISOs to IWPs is also transferred to a company database housing all
project documents. The company developed this proprietary database so that it could be accessed
56
through the company’s intranet. There was also care to make sure it would house the most up-to-date
project information and documents for engineering and construction. The breadth of the database
is shown in Figure 15. Storing this information on the intranet database allows the planners to easily
and quickly filter and retrieve all or one of the drawings associated with an IWP. The database also
provides a process check to ensure that all drawings have been assigned to an IWP, and that no
drawings have been overlooked.
Shared Services
• Procurement
• Oracle financials
• Project controls
• Line list ISO control
• Project administration • Materials management
• Estimating • Field staffing
• Document control • Field productivity
• Line list ISO control management
• Engineered equipment • Quality assurance
• Vendor information
Intranet
Database
Figure 15. Content of Proprietary Intranet Database
When the majority of the materials associated with an IWP have been delivered to site and received
by the warehouse, the planners place the IWP on the three-week look-ahead schedule. This allows
the warehouse four weeks to bundle the materials for the IWP and then deliver them to site at the
appropriate time. The planners print two hard copies of the IWP at this time for review and approval by
the superintendent and assigned general foreman. When the IWP is released for construction, these
hard copies are provided to the foreman and the pipe fitter assigned to the work. All IWPs are checked
for the most up-to-date drawing revisions prior to being released to construction.
Once the IWP is issued for construction, the actual hours are tracked alongside the pre-determined
planned hours. Planners utilize this information to identify trends and stay up to date with any field
issues. Foremen report the progress of their IWPs in terms of the percentages of their ISOs that have
been completed each day. The superintendents utilize this information to calculate productivity, which
help them identify the presence of construction issues. Reporting progress on a daily basis allows
general foremen to be involved in the activities of the crew and to actively solve problems.
57
Once the ISOs within an IWP have been installed, the craftsperson signs the ISO and returns it to
the foreman. The foreman inspects the work, adds a signature cover sheet, and signs and returns the
ISO to the planner. Each ISO turned into the planner is subjected to an inspection process performed
by a quality control inspector. Punch items are noted and returned to the crew for compliance. Once
approved, the ISO will be returned to the planner to be filed and tracked until any additional ISOs that
are required to complete system testing are returned and approved. This approval process ensures
accountability, facilitates the effective tracking of the piping that is available for testing, and determines
the level of completion of project systems.
Benefits
• Increased safety awareness – When craft workers are given a specific task through an IWP
that is limited to a small area, they become familiar with their space and are more easily able
to identify and mitigate potential safety issues.
• Clear definition of work task – The IWPs contain a clear definition of the work that is to
be performed, the work hours required, and the expected completion date. The proper
documentation is supplied to the craftsperson within the IWP.
• Helps drive accountability – The general foreman and each foreman assigned to an IWP are
responsible for providing a reasonable completion date. Since progress is reported on a daily
basis, the general foremen and foremen are held directly accountable for their work.
• Supervisors spend more time supervising – Due to the high level of planning completed
prior to the issuance of an IWP, the general foremen and foremen are more able to spend
their time supervising work and troubleshooting issues in the field, instead of searching for
materials or missing documentation.
• Improves labor productivity – Labor productivity increases as the superintendents and

general foremen are able to react quickly to mitigate productivity issues. Additionally, the
planners complete the research and planning up front so that the crewmembers do not have
to search for information and materials.
Challenges
• Forced accountability is not always accepted by general foremen – The general foremen
on site do not always appreciate the accountability associated with workface planning.
Workface planning forces the general foremen to make known what they are currently
working on and what they plan to work on in the next four weeks. Additionally, because
progress is closely monitored, the general foremen are held accountable for the work being
performed in their crews.
• Reluctance of supervisors to utilize new technology – The company has experienced

some push-back from craft superintendents in utilizing new technologies for planning
purposes. The general sentiment in this case is, “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” These
superintendents feel that their planning processes are adequate, and they do not want to use
models or databases to increase planning efficiency.
58
Lessons Learned
• Superintendent buy-in is vital for successful workface planning implementation
– Superintendents greatly influence the general foremen, foremen, and crews. When the
superintendent buys into the workface planning process, he or she will push planning onto
the general foremen, who in turn will push planning to the foremen, who in turn will push
planning to the crews. If superintendents do not see the value of workface planning, it
becomes nearly impossible to effectively implement work packaging on a project.
• Planners must receive progress feedback – While it is the responsibility of the

superintendents, not the planner, to hold others accountable to the project schedule,
planners must receive proper feedback on progress and issues arising in the field to plan
effectively. This feedback includes daily progress reporting and discussion of field issues.
Being knowledgeable of project progress allows the planners to incorporate learning into the
IWPs that have not yet been released and solve issues that the craft workers may not be able
to solve without support.
59
Appendix B: Figures for Reproduction
61
62
Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart
STAGE I STAGE II STAGE III

Preliminary Planning/Design Detailed Engineering Construction
Construction Schedule CWP

Detailed IWP System
Project and Refinement and EWP Schedule
Engineering Construction Development Turnovers/Start-up
Definition Engineering & WBS Boundary Development
Schedule & Execution & Commissioning
Planning Development Development
STAGE I
Preliminary Planning/Design
Construction CWP Boundary

Planning Development
Plan for Work Packaging Plot Plan or General Arrangement
Refine Contracting Plan Drawings
Refine Sequence of Construction Construction Plan
Plan for Procurement and Logistics Contracting/Procurement Execution
Project Plan
Definition Identify Site/Project Constraints Schedule Sequence of Installation
Consider Weather Risks Refinement & WBS Crafts Workers Available
Define Overall Scope of Deliver Construction Plan Development
Work/Project WBS
Consider Temporary Structures/Utility
Define Contracting and Requirements Level 2: Geographical Layout of Systems/Areas
Procurement Plan Consider Options for Construction E – by discipline Materials of Construction
Define Construction Equipment P – by commodity Client/Contractor Contract Milestones
Sequencing System Turnover Sequence System Turnover Sequence
C – by discipline
Technical Deliverable
Requirements Preliminary IWP
release plan
Levels of Design Engineering
EWP Boundary
Planning
Development
Plan for Work Packaging

Consideration for Modular Construction
Review Contracting Plan
Consider Construction Feedback
Review Sequence of Construction
Define EWP Standard
Review Project Definition Deliverables
Review Procurement Plan
General Arrangement/Plot Plan
Technology Plan
63
64
STAGE II
Detailed Engineering
Detailed
Schedule
Development
Schedule
Detailed Level 3: Execute EWP Standard Final Level 3

E – by discipline, by EWP
P – by commodity,
by construction
need date
Preliminary Level 3:
C – by CWP
STAGE III
Construction
Send sequence
Create IWP
Create Monitor and content of
release
IWPs constraints IWP to Document
schedule
Control
Notify required
2 Document
meeting to identify Control
support trades
task groupings
1 IWP Creation Interface
Hard-copy
IWP created
Close out
5 IWP
Report progress Closeout
Issue IWP to
field once
Report IWPs constraints are
that are satisfied
complete

Monitor
Leave in field Yes completion Field
Remove items until Complete
not completed status in executes
completion No the field the work
4 Control of the 3 Issuance

IWP in the Field to the Field
65
66

1 IWP Creation
Identify IWP Create IWP Assemble Create IWP

content, identifiers IWPs in schedule based
limits, and and add to electronic on level 3
boundaries IWP log format
meeting to identify Send updated
log to Doc See #2 IWP Doc
task groupings Control (B)
Remove and Control Advanced
repackage notification to
support trades
See #3 Issuance to based on IWP
Field (A), #4 Control of IWP release plan
in the Field (A) Monitor all
Leave task in Leave in constraints based
package or on IWP look
remove ahead schedule
Work
Safety Construction
Quality IFC Pre- Access Craft Constraints
and Schedule Materials Equipment Scaffolding
Control Drawings Fabrication and Availability to monitor
Permiting and Tools
Laydown
Have
NO constraints YES See #2 IWP Doc
been met by Control (A)
schedule?
2 Document Control Interface
Applicable IWP hard copy is
Obtain
See #1 IWP superintendant created by
remaining
creation (A) vets the IWP Planning
signatures
Content and Plan
Electronic Hard-copy IWP is

Document list is turned over to
sent to Document Document Control
Control
Doc Control
Document Doc Control Doc Control creates
loads IWP content
See #1 IWP Control loads verifies two hard copies
into system
creation (B) log into system document filing one as
using place
to use as place revision and master
holders created
holders signatures
from Log

Doc Control
Doc Control monitors the transmits two
electronic document list for each hard copies to See #3 IWP
IWP and transmits any revision Planning for Issuance to the
notices to Planning issuing field (A)
67
68

3 Issuance to the Field
See #2 Document Planner files
Planner receives
Control Interface (A) both copies of IWP
IWP from Doc
See #4 Control of Control until constraints are
IWP in the Field (A) satisfied
Work Final
Safety Construction
Equipment Scaffolding Verification
Quality IFC Pre- Access Craft
and Schedule Materials
Control Drawings fabrication and Availability of
Permiting and Tools
Laydown Constraints
YES Have all

constraints been
satisfied?
Release IWP to Send confirma-
applicable tion of start to
support craft Is
superintendant NO it feasible to YES Monitor
hold packages constraints
as is?
NO
See #1 IWP Creation (A)
Regularly report See #4 Control of IWP

Field executes
progress on prede- in the Field (A)
the work
termined interval
in IWP
4 Control of IWP in the Field
Return IWP to Planning files Confirm See #5 IWP
Planning complete progress report Closeout (A)
IWPs
Completed
Items
Remove
Monitor the Removed
unfinished
status until Items See #1
See #3 IWP Issuance tasks for
complete IWP Creation (A)
to the Field (A) repackaging
YES YES Repack

Is Is the
Planning the IWP Is it
NO NO IWP to be
records 100% complete feasible for
held or unfinished
progress from within scheduled IWP to remain in
items to be
field time frame? the field?
repackaged?

Hold
Monitor IWP
Return IWP to until hold is
Planning removed or See #3 IWP
constraint is Issuance to Field (A)
resolved
69
70

5 IWP Closeout
Input IWP
Confirm progress in
quantities Project
Controls
See #4 Control in
the Field (A)
Does IWP NO Notify Document Control

contain redlines or of completion and no
notes? change to master Document Control
updates and
archives
YES completed master
Transmit all notes and
IWP
copies of redlines to Doc
Control for update of
master
Send redlines to field

engineer for inclusion in
master set
Field engineer Document

performs Control updates
required updates master set
Project Manager
Manager Manager
Engineers General Foreman
Superintendent
Discipline Leads
Workface
Planner

Procurement
Manager
71
72
Project Manager
Engineering Procurement Construction Project Controls

Manager Manager Manager Manager
Workface
Planner
Notes
73
Notes
75
Research Team 272, Advanced Work Packaging: Design through
Workface Execution
Phase I Phase II
Steve Autry, ConocoPhillips Steve Autry, ConocoPhillips
Richard Buxo, SNC-Lavalin Michael Bankes, Fluor
Doug House, Zachry Industrial Inc. Jim Blevins, Pathfinder
Mark Hunter, Bechtel Roy Burnette, CH2M-HILL
John Hyland, Lauren Engineers & Keith Critzer, ExxonMobil
Constructors Joel Gray, Coreworx
Jose LaRota, Southern Company Olfa Hamdi, The University of Texas at
Fernanda Leite, The University of Texas at Austin
Austin Ken Kohl, GE Power & Water
Brendan Lynam, Kvaerner Jose LaRota, Southern Company
Sarah Meeks, The University of Texas at Fernanda Leite, The University of Texas at
Austin Austin
Robin Mikaelsson, Bentley Systems, Inc. Robin Mikaelsson, Bentley Systems, Inc.
William J. O’Brien, The University of Texas at William J. O’Brien, The University of Texas at
Austin Austin
Mark Parsons, KBR Bryan Parsons, KBR
Randy Paulson, Progress Energy Sean Pellegrino, Chevron
Sean Pellegrino, Chevron, Co-Chair Jim Rammell, Wood Group Mustang,
Jim Rammell, Wood Group Mustang, Co-Chair
Co-Chair Lloyd Rankin, Ascension Systems
Jim Vicknair, WorleyParsons Yogesh Srivastava, North West Redwater
Partnership
Stan Stasek, DTE Energy
Jim Vicknair, WorleyParsons
Glen Warren, Construction Owners
Association of Alberta, Co-Chair
Editor: Jacqueline Thomas

Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316
IR 272-2, Version 3.1
Volume I
The Knowledge Leader for Project Success
Owners • Contractors • Academics

Gic Cii MD STD 001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gic Cii MD STD 001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Work Packaging:

Design through Workface Execution

Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1

Research Team 272, Advanced Work Packaging:

Construction Industry Institute

Implementation Resource 272-2, Version 3.1

Prepared as a joint research project of the Construction Industry Institute

The University of Texas at Austin.

Printed in the United States of America.

Version 1.0 (July 2011)

Appendix A: Case Study 55

Appendix B: Figures for Reproduction 61

• The engineering team supports the construction sequence and schedule.

• Vendor-supplied equipment remains on schedule.

• Materials are purchased and delivered to support construction.

• Work toward closeout and turnover is better controlled.

• Benefits found in the RT 272 case studies include the following:

Advanced Work Packaging

Workface Planning Lead

Work Breakdown Structure

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a hierarchical representation of a complete project or

Engineering Work Package

• scope of work with document list

• drawings (e.g., general arrangement and equipment installation)

• installation and materials specifications

• vendor data (e.g., equipment O&M manuals)

• lists (e.g., line lists and equipment lists)

• additional pertinent information to support (e.g., permitting studies).

Construction Work Package

• at least one EWP

• budget (work hours/cost/productivity)

• special resource requirements.

Installation Work Package

• work package summary—inclusive of description of work, location, system or facility code,

• quantity work sheet

• safety hazard analysis, specific to tasks in work package

• Material Safety Data Sheet

• drawings (engineering and vendor design)

• specifications (engineering and vendor design)

• manufacturer’s installation instructions

• installation test results forms

• completion verification signatures.

2.2 Prerequisites to Advanced Work Packaging

2.3 Work Packaging Overview/Recommended Process

Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart

STAGE I STAGE II STAGE III

Construction Schedule CWP

Figure 2. Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart

2.3.1 Integrated Life Cycle Flow Charts and Narrative

How to use the Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart

Stage I – Project Definition

Construction CWP Boundary

Figure 3. Stage I – Preliminary Planning/Design

a design process that supports the installation process.

• Detailed engineering has not commenced.

• Owners and contractors are involved in the project definition process.

• Construction planning resources are available.

1. Definition of the overall scope of work/project – In order to support work packaging,

Stage I – Construction Planning

6. Permit requirements are known.

• Are there contractual requirements with regard to work packaging?

• Has a responsibility matrix been developed for work packaging?

• Who will write the work package process?