CII AWP Execution Planning Guide

AWP Execution Planning Guide
for Projects and Organizations
Final Report 390

CII Member Companies
Owners Contractors Service Providers

AdvanSix Baker Concrete Construction Inc. Accenture
Air Products Barton Malow Company Alvarez & Marsal
Albemarle Corporation Bechtel Group, Inc. Autodesk, Inc.
Anheuser-Busch InBev Black & Veatch AVEVA Solutions Ltd.
Aramco Services Company Burns & McDonnell AWP University
Archer Daniels Midland Company Chemex Global CAXperts GmbH
Architect of the Capitol Chiyoda Corporation Construct-X, LLC
Ascend Performance Materials CRB Dassault Systèmes SE
Braskem S.A. Dematic Datum360 Limited
Bruce Power Exyte U.S. Inc. Deloitte
Cargill, Inc. Fluor Corporation DyCat Solutions
Chevron H+M Industrial EPC EARTHBRAIN Ltd.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Hargrove Engineers + Constructors Global Site Solutions
Covestro LLC Hatch Group ASI
CSL Behring JGC Corporation Hilti Corporation
DTE Energy KBR I.M.P.A.C.T.
DuPont Kiewit Corporation iConstruct
Eastman Chemical Company Larsen & Toubro Limited Insight-AWP Inc.
Entergy Corporation MasTec Power Corporation Kahua, Inc.
ExxonMobil Corporation Matrix Service Company Kairos Power, LLC
GlaxoSmithKline McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. O3 Solutions
Honeywell International Inc. McDermott International, Inc. Oracle USA, Inc.
INEOS Group Holdings S. A. Middough Inc. Pathfinder, LLC
Irving Oil Limited MODEC Inc. PTAG, Inc.
Johnson & Johnson Orion Plant Service, Inc. SIRIS LLC
KAFD PCL Constructors, Inc. T. A. Cook Consultants Inc.
Koch Industries, Inc. POWER Engineers, Inc. Valency Inc.
Linde Engineering Americas Primoris Services Corporation Verum Partners
Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard Industrial Group
LyondellBasell Techint Engineering & Construction
Ma’aden-Saudi Arabia Mining Co. Technip Energies
Marathon Petroleum Corporation thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (USA), Inc.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Toyo Engineering Corporation
New York Power Authority United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
NOVA Chemicals Corporation Victaulic
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Wood
Nutrien Worley
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Zachry Group
Ontario Power Generation
Petronas
Phillips 66
Public Service Electric & Gas Company
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL)
SABIC – Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
Sempra Infrastructure Partners, LP
Shell
Sila Nanotechnologies Inc.
Smithsonian Institution
Southern Company
TC Energy
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Dow Chemical Company
The Procter & Gamble Company
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of State
U.S. General Services Administration
Vale S.A.
Zachry Corporation
Prepared by
Construction Industry Institute
Research Team 390, Development of an AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects
Final Report 390
September 2023
© 2023 Construction Industry Institute™
The University of Texas at Austin
CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members are
permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.
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. 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.

Executive Summary
Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) is a planned, executable process that extends over the breadth of an
engineer-procure-construct (EPC) project. AWP is an improvement to traditional project management
that promotes a disciplined approach to organizing and delivering the project by utilizing clearly defined
work packages at each project stage, such as Engineering Work Packages (EWPs), Procurement Work
Packages (PWPs), Construction Work Packages (CWPs), Installation Work Packages (IWP), and System
Work Packages (SWPs). CII Research Team 272 (RT-272) created the following formal definition:
AWP is the overall process flow of all the detailed work packages. It is a planned, executable
process that encompasses the work on an engineering, procurement, and construction project,
beginning with initial planning and continuing through detailed design and construction execution.
AWP provides the framework for productive and progressive construction, and presumes the
existence of a construction execution plan. (CII/COAA 2013)
It begins with initial planning (where AWP can help determine the most effective project delivery strategy)
and continues through detailed design, construction execution, and commissioning (CII 2020a). AWP
heralds a new era of productivity and predictability for projects within the industrial sector. Related benefits
in alignment, quality, and safety are now well understood and observed by practitioners. Previous studies
found that AWP projects can lead to up to 20% improved project performance, measured as a function
of safety, cost, schedule, productivity, and predictability (CII 2015). Many projects have seen successful
results and owners as well as provider organizations have adopted AWP as an execution standard.
That being said, some projects struggle to adopt AWP because requirements can vary across owner
organizations. As projects involve many participants, varying maturity of AWP implementation can
also cause problems. Recent CII research indicates that suppliers have little knowledge of AWP while
projects still struggle to align engineering deliverables with construction need dates and the Path of
Construction (CII 2021, CII 2020b, CII 2020c). Failure in aligning engineering and procurement with
planned construction limits the success of investments in AWP.
Therefore, with this effort RT-390 aimed to guide practitioners as they work to adopt or mature their AWP
program to gain the benefits that can come from successful implementation. This work contributes to the
AWP body or knowledge in the following ways:
• Providing guidance to owners and early implementers

• Providing guidance to project stakeholders for AWP execution per discipline
• Providing enterprise-level considerations for AWP implementation
• Providing supporting evidence of AWP benefits on early planning and execution, and changes
during engineering observed through an industry survey
AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations v

Reader’s Guide
RT-390 developed this report as a collection of self-contained modules to facilitate the reader’s access
to information based on personal goals and interests. Final Report 390 consists of seven self-contained
modules (see Figure 1).

for Projects and Organizations Enterprise Guide
Enterprise Guide
Final Report 390
Final Report 390
AWPfor
Projects Planning
Execution and Organizations
Guide
A: Preliminary Planning and Design
AWP for Projects
Execution
Handbook and Organizations
Planning
E: Procurement Guide
and Supply Chain Process
AWPfor
AWPfor
Projects
Execution and
Handbook D:
Projects Planning
Execution
Organizations
Planning Guide
Commissioning
and Organizations
Guide
and Startup
B: Detailed Engineering
AWP Review and C: Construction Execution
for Projects and
Handbook Organizations
B: Detailed Engineering
AWP Execution Planning Guide Handbook A: Preliminary Planning Design
Owner’s Guide AWP Review and Owner’s Guide
D: Commissioning and Startup

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations
Final Report 390
E-1
E: Procurement
Final Report 390
Final Report 390
Final Report 390
Final Report 390
Final Report 390
Figure 1. The Elements of Final Report 390
The AWP Review and Owner’s Guide is the starting point for readers. It includes an overview of AWP,
including special considerations for owners. This module distills AWP knowledge from previous work and
addresses gaps in AWP adoption and how users can yield the expected benefits.
The AWP Handbooks provide guidance for successful implementation per discipline:
Handbook A: Preliminary Planning and Design
Handbook B: Detailed Engineering
Handbook C: Construction Execution, Testing, and Completions
Handbook D: Commissioning and Startup
Handbook E: Procurement and Supply Chain Process
Each modular handbook explains how to perform the work for one stage, informing practitioners, as
well as key project stakeholders like EPC contractors, owners, and suppliers. Each handbook is self-
contained; however, together the complete set offers a granular view of the process steps required for
AWP success throughout the project lifecycle.
Finally, the Enterprise Guide presents considerations for enterprise adoption of AWP, including evidence
for the expected benefits, barriers, and definitions.
AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations vi

Contents
Executive Summary iii
AWP Review and Owner’s Guide 1-1
Handbook A: Preliminary Planning and Design A-1
Handbook B: Detailed Engineering B-1
Handbook C: Construction Execution, Testing, and Completions C-1
Handbook D: Commissioning and Startup D-1
Handbook E: Procurement and Supply Chain Process E-1
Enterprise Guide EG-1
Appendix: Survey Respondents’ Demographics and AWP Experience I-1
Bibliography I-4
AWP Review and Owner’s Guide
Final Report 390

Chapter 1
AWP Review and Fundamentals
1.1. What is AWP?

Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) is a systematic, formal approach to ensure the productive and
predictable completion of capital projects. Put simply, AWP helps to ensure on-time completion that hits
cost targets with associated improvements in safety and quality. AWP is not specific to construction, nor
is it a narrow set of changes to practice. Rather, its effects have been likened to a wellness program that,
when well implemented, has many benefits for the project(s) affected. Commitment from management,
provision of champions, thoughtful implementation into processes and deliverables, incorporation into
contracts, and team education are necessary for its success.
AWP must be implemented early in project planning and continue through completion for maximum
benefit. Formally, AWP is defined as follows:
AWP is the overall process flow of all the detailed work packages. It is a planned, executable
process that encompasses the work on an engineering, procurement, and construction project,
beginning with initial planning and continuing through detailed design and construction execution.
AWP provides the framework for productive and progressive construction, and presumes the
existence of a construction execution plan. (CII/COAA 2013)
Central to AWP is the definition of work packages. While projects have long packaged work (typically
by contract or labor packages), most management methods have focused on activity analysis and
progressing by activity completion, or other methods of credit (e.g., drawings released or units installed).
AWP defines a number of work packages as discrete scope deliverables: construction, engineering,
procurement, system, and installation work packages). AWP organizes these work packages in a specific
hierarchy or relationship that follows project progress from Planning to Design and through Procurement
and Construction to Startup and Turnover. The formal definition of these work packages provides a
basis for effective planning and execution that follows a logical sequence of work. Management by
packages also supports constraint management and aligns progress measurement with the desired flow
of execution.
AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-2

1.2. What is new with AWP?

AWP brings three new things to traditional project execution approaches:
1. It enhances early collaborative planning exercises by creating containers for the outputs of those
exercises – work packages ordered in a logical execution sequence (generally called the Path of
Construction or PoC).
2. An Engineering Work Package (EWP) is a deliverable to construction, rather than how engineering
manages its work. EWPs are aligned with Construction Work Packages (CWPs) to aid timely
design delivery for the following Procurement and Construction steps.
3. AWP creates the role of workface planner as an aid to field supervision. This role offloads certain
constraint management and planning tasks from field supervisors, allowing them to manage their
work more effectively.
1.3. AWP’s relationship to other project improvement approaches

AWP may be differentiated from other project improvement approaches insofar as it is a systematic
approach to project execution, from early planning through startup. Many contemporary approaches
advocate for collaborative contracting and early stakeholder engagement. AWP can be considered
complementary to these approaches because it has explicit provisions for early, interactive planning
sessions. However, AWP also places these sessions in a detailed workflow consistent with early planning,
primarily in the industrial sector (e.g., AWP augments Front End Planning or Front End Loading). The AWP
workflow is expressed in the language and approach of industrial projects; it applies to other sectors, but
it may take some additional work to translate it to those sectors (e.g., mapping to different terminology;
considering different contracting approaches and distribution of design work, or expectations for project
controls).
Other project improvement approaches, such as Lean Construction, have emphasized assuring the
flow of work and moving away from activity-based management. Complementary efforts are called for
in constraint management to avoid interruptions to work. AWP broadly embraces these approaches,
particularly in field execution with explicit instructions to package field work in Installation Work Packages
(IWPs) and to release that work to crews only when all constraints have been removed. Design and
procurement activities organized in work packages also support effective work flows in a sequence to
support field and fabrication activities. The overall arrangement of these activities has been mapped to
traditional project execution.

1.4. AWP and WorkFace Planning

Workface planning (WFP) is a subset of AWP that focuses on field execution. WFP is a constraint
management approach to organizing and releasing work via Installation Work Packages (IWPs). IWPs
are loosely defined as small, easily manageable blocks of work for a foreman and crew to perform.
As progress in the field moves from bulk construction to systems completion and testing, WFP also
encompasses the management of System Work Packages (SWPs). Figure 1-1 depicts WFP in relationship
to AWP, as well as showing how AWP fits in across the project timeline.
ADVANCED WORK PACKAGING

WORKFACE PLANNING
Interactive Planning
IWPs
CWPs
Project Setup POC
EWPs SWPs
Construction
Front End Planning
Commissioning
Detailed Engineering Startup
Figure 1-1. Overview of Advanced Work Packaging across the Project Timeline
(updated from CII/COAA 2013)
Many organizations start their journey into AWP by making a trial run of WFP during construction. These
implementations are often successful enough to warrant movement to full AWP on subsequent projects;
however, WFP success is limited by the quality of upstream planning. If engineering is late and materials
are not delivered in a timely manner, the benefits of constraint management may be overwhelmed by
upstream problems. In these cases, WFP may be more of a mitigation strategy than an improvement
strategy. Moving to a full AWP implementation is the best way to align project design and
procurement with field (and fabrication) execution.

Chapter 2
Motivation
2.1. What are the benefits of AWP?

AWP is strongly associated with better planning and consistency of execution with an early clearing of
constraints. This approach assures productive and predictable outcomes. Multiple case studies have
found benefits in the following categories:
• Safety – AWP projects release work to the field that is constraint-free and in sequence, minimizing
unplanned work. This leads to reduced opportunities for unsafe work and a better ability to take
safety precautions and educate about the work at hand, including safety issues related to rework,
remobilization to complete work, and moving to contingent work.
• Field productivity – Releasing constraint-free work to the field increases productivity because
it lets crews focus on installation activities, and construction supervision (i.e., foreman, general
foreman, and superintendent) can focus on the next tasks. Early planning aligning design and
procurement efforts with construction supports timely materials delivery to the field. Time on
tools increases, and in-sequence work ensures the effort is focused on appropriate areas to meet
milestones. Note: case studies have shown similar improvements with fabrication yard activities
(CII 2015a).
• Quality – Planning the work better and releasing it in the right sequence decreases rework due to
poor installation or workarounds and reduces punch list items.
• Cost – Optimizing the use of resources in the field or fabrication yard with improved time on tools,
less rework, and less out-of-sequence work has been shown to decrease cost compared with
traditional fast-track project execution. This also translates into a reduction of indirect costs.
• Schedule – AWP can decrease schedule slips as well as bring in planning and execution activities
early than planned. This is associated with an improved ability to complete work productively with
fewer punch list items. Execution following planned work packages also decreases incentives to
claim credit by completing large chunks of work out of sequence (such as completing all large pipe
installs but leaving small lines for later).
• Predictability – Accomplishing work in a planned sequence, with careful planning to align design
and procurement activities with construction and startup, significantly increases a project’s chances
of meeting cost and schedule targets. A well-planned AWP project also increases the ability to
accommodate the inevitable risks and changes in projects. All of this increases the predictability of
project outcomes and the predictability of craft professional staffing and needs.
• Cost avoidance and improved contingency reduction – Owners estimate to current industry
norms. AWP can reduce contingency through the early identification and resolution of risks.

The magnitude of benefits changes with project conditions and the maturity and scope of AWP execution.
Compared with traditional fast-track projects, AWP has been found to decrease costs by four to 10 percent
of total installed cost and increase field productivity by 10 to 25 percent (CII 2015). As improvements due
to AWP implementation become ingrained over time, these gains may be reflected in lower cost estimates
and higher productivity baselines. AWP will continue to see strong performance in assuring predictable
outcomes, high-quality installation, and strong safety performance. The predictable work AWP provides
may be leveraged by digitalization and other new technologies to improve productivity.
In addition to the primary benefits seen above, many ancillary benefits have been reported. These include
improved craft morale, increased time for supervisors to work with their crews, improved progress tracking,
and improved housekeeping. Other noted benefits include improved constructability input and up-front
planning. An overarching benefit noted by implementers is increased alignment among stakeholders,
leading to a better project environment.
2.2. Maturity and Implementation

Practitioners must recognize the maturity of their own AWP implementation and that of their partners to
implement AWP successfully. The literature broadly recognizes three levels of maturity:
• Stage I – Early Stages

• Stage II – AWP Effectiveness
• Stage III – Business Transformation
These levels reflect the journey a firm takes to adopt AWP.

Because implementation affects most aspects of a project Performance Breakout
Productivity
and most stakeholders, it takes a coordinated and deliberate
effort to achieve a fully effective AWP program. Companies
and projects typically do not start with a fully realized Quality Cost
implementation. Typically, they implement aspects of AWP

on initial projects and grow from those first steps into more
extensive and robust implementations.
CII Research Team 319 (RT-319) explored the relationship Predictability Safety
between an organization’s AWP maturity and its project Stage I

performance. Figure 1-2 depicts the relative performance of Stage II
Stage III
Schedule
AWP projects conducted by organizations at the three levels of
maturity across multiple dimensions of performance. Figure 1-3 Figure 1-2. Project Performance for
on the next page depicts maturity and performance as RT-319 Different Levels of Maturity (CII 2015)
reported in its assessment of case studies (CII 2015a).

Project Performace AWP Early Stages AWP Effectiveness AWP Business Transformation
AWP Maturity
Figure 1-3. AWP Maturity and Project Performance

(adapted from RR319-11, p. 114; O’Brien and Ponticelli 2015; CII 2015b)
During the early stages, firms often implement workface planning during construction, but with limited
engagement with the project team beyond construction:
1. AWP Early Stages is associated with up to 10% improvement in productivity with meaningful but
limited improvement in other areas.
2. AWP Effectiveness is typically associated with a full implementation of AWP from project
inception through startup. In this level, productivity improvements of 25% from baseline can be
seen with significant jumps in other performance areas.
3. AWP Business Transformation is associated with the maturation of implementation. This level
retains the gains of AWP Effectiveness while increasing the quality and predictability of outcomes.
RT-390 makes the following key recommendations for each level of maturity:
AWP Early Stages AWP Business Transformation
• Set small project goals. • Continue investing in AWP implementation.
• Allocate adequate budgets. • Increase the flexibility of project managers
• Identify key roles to drive AWP implementation. to evolve and adapt AWP processes.
• Perform intensive training. • Export the project as a “world-class”
benchmark.
AWP Effectiveness
• Support enterprise goals.
• Set ambitious project goals.
• Continue to improve and evolve AWP
• Prioritize incremental improvement projects.
execution by incorporating lessons learned
• Watch out for complacency. and feedback from implementation teams.
• Attain to AWP guidelines.
• Look to enterprise implementation.

Experience with AWP implementation has shown that it is difficult for organizations and projects to
move from early stages to effectiveness. Early implementations that are focused on WFP tend to involve
construction organizations. These implementations show multiple benefits, but moving to the next level
of benefits requires early AWP implementation and the full project team’s involvement, and it has proven
harder to bring together this bigger group. RT-390 is aware of several projects where early investment
efforts have been hindered due to poor incorporation of partners. In particular, the incorporation of
engineering organizations appears to be problematic. Recent research into barriers found the integration
of engineering to be a significant barrier beyond early adoption (CII 2020b).
As such, many organizations experience a chasm between early implementation and full effectiveness
(depicted in Figure 1-4). This chasm reflects the disparity of expected project performance outcomes
between early and mature implementers. A significant effort is needed to cross the chasm and pull the
team together – and this can require investment beyond a construction-focused effort in WFP.
Early
Mature Implementers
Implementers
Project Performace
Performace
Chasm
AWP Maturity
Figure 1-4. The Performance Chasm between Early Stage and Full AWP Implementation
(adapted from RR319-11, p. 114; O’Brien and Ponticelli 2015; CII 2015b)

What can AWP do? What can AWP not fix?

As a project execution approach, AWP has proven to be successful when implemented well. That being
said, AWP is not a solution for every problem that plagues projects. Although they are not comprehensive,
the following points are intended to share what to expect with AWP implementation. As the previous
section noted, these expectations should be tempered based on one’s maturity of implementation.
What can AWP do? (What is AWP?)

• AWP provides a thoughtful way to structure the production of a physical asset (focused on work or
work packages, not abstract schedule activities).
• AWP offers a mechanism to ensure predictable project outcomes.
• AWP gives a way to increase efficiency at the workface (certainly compared to baselines), with
consequent cost and schedule improvements.
• AWP gives a structure to surface issues and identifies their impact early, so they can be proactively
addressed.
• AWP can provide methods to mitigate external impacts on projects.
• AWP provides a pathway to connect front end planning with execution (assuring continuity across
project execution).
• AWP shows a pathway for early execution involvement.
• AWP is a pathway to ensure the execution of good practice.
• AWP helps keep focus on the correct sequence of execution (doing the right thing at the right time).
• AWP requires a culture change across the board.
• AWP is a project delivery methodology that is owned by project management.
• AWP marks a shift in philosophy and a shift in execution discipline.
What is AWP unable to fix or solve? (What is AWP not?)

• AWP is not a silver bullet or an easy button. (Rather, it is a process and a journey.)
• AWP is not a software toolset.
• AWP is not a construction approach.
• AWP will not lower prices across the board. (AWP drives success at the work front but may require
increased investments in other areas.)
• AWP does not resolve all issues at the work front.
• AWP does not resolve macro issues affecting project delivery (but it can help with mitigation plans).
• AWP is not a “one size fits all” solution for projects.
• AWP will not bridge a skills gap (but it can help plan around gaps).

Chapter 3
Special Considerations for Owners and Leaders
Successful AWP implementation can yield significant benefits in performance, as discussed in Section 2.1,
but it also requires a shift in philosophy and execution discipline. As such, owners can directly benefit by
maximizing project outcomes, but they also need to embrace the required philosophy shift required to
set up an AWP project for success. The following sections provide guidance on special topics as owners
adjust and expand their internal processes for AWP implementation:
Leadership
Owner organizations play a central role in providing leadership to AWP teams. Indeed, many have
called AWP an owner-led process. Only the owner has a big-picture view of the project and can ensure
that contracts and incentives are aligned among project team members to support the smooth flow of
information and deliverables. Owners also play a role in timely decision-making and supporting any
necessary interventions.
Owner leadership and advocacy are particularly important in getting started with implementing AWP,
as the team’s support for education and investment in new processes and ways of working can be
significant. An important part of this process is acknowledging the maturity levels of the owner’s team
and other project participants. Expectations for performance should align with this maturity. During the
early stages of implementation, AWP should be seen as a learning investment; fortunately, evidence
shows positive payback in productivity even for these early investments. Owners who are beginning their
AWP journey should bring on board experienced AWP personnel to aid in initial planning; ideally, these
resources will also support the project through execution.
One important aspect of the AWP program is clearly communicating requirements in RFPs and
solicitations. Unclear requirements and expectations can lead to confusion later in the project. There also
must be a balance between prescriptive requirements and aspirations for performance. As more firms
gain experience with AWP implementation, they will be able to share useful lessons and ways of working.
Culture
Implemented well, AWP can be a positive influence on project culture. Organizations with mature
implementations have noted increases in project alignment (CII 2015a). In particular, AWP can help
transform project culture, making it more proactive and collaborative. A contractor who has implemented
AWP at the enterprise level noted a change in field supervision culture: moving from a “hunter-gatherer”
approach to one more focused on pre-project planning because, under AWP, materials were now readily
available and the constraints that had impeded field progress were removed. This change requires some
retraining and orientation of field personnel to leverage AWP fully.

Understanding culture change with AWP is important. Ideally, firms can align AWP efforts with other
efforts to improve culture and project alignment. Recognize the culture change both within and outside the
organization. In particular, owners must realize the up-front work needed to help EPCs implement AWP.
Owner education and training are required to assist their partners in understanding changes in process and
associated culture. Conversely, many EPC and contractor organizations have invested in their enterprise
implementations of AWP, so owners should be open to learning from that experience.
Digitalization and new technology

Digitalization and associated new technologies are principal levers for improving AWP execution.
AWP, including WFP, contains data-intensive processes. Constraint management of IWPs requires the
assessment of design completion, materials readiness and location, workforce availability, equipment
availability, and HSE information, among other items. Digital representation of these items can greatly
speed and enhance constraint management and related progressing and reporting activities.
Work packages of all types are containers of a variety of information. Experience shows that good
information tools aligned with work package nomenclature can be great aids to AWP execution. In
particular, supportive information systems can help share information across internal and external silos
using work package definitions as the organizing structure. It is important to consider AWP naming
conventions and information system support for AWP processes early in the project setup. Note:
information systems that do not support AWP nomenclature will hinder success.
Similarly, it is important to ensure that reporting across the project is digital and does not fall back to historic
paper-based reporting from partners. Digital reporting supports updating data and collaborative decision-
making based on a shared understanding. AWP provides an information-gathering and interpretation
approach that supports good project management. Many companies are investing in digitization at the
enterprise level for all projects. AWP can support these initiatives by defining information needs and
business processes, providing the business rationale for investments to expand digital capabilities.
In spite of these findings, many companies and projects begin their adoption of AWP processes without
investing in digital technology. These first tries are usually small-scale experiments (e.g., small projects,
limited workface planning on larger projects) where manual data collection to augment existing information
tools is practical. These experiments generally demonstrate the utility of improved information systems to
scale AWP use on larger projects.
Timing of implementation
Ideally, AWP is considered at project inception, planning for AWP early in the project to provide the
appropriate resources and structure. Adding AWP to a project in-flight is difficult and should be avoided
(although an AWP approach to an intervention on a troubled project can add value). Workface planning
(WFP), as a subset of AWP, may be deployed with appropriate planning and scoping at the start of the
Construction phase. WFP should be deployed for all trades to manage the work front, although many
early experiments used WFP for only select trades and/or parts of the project.

Define your expectations

Set expectations for AWP at the start of each project. These expectations should be in line with the
maturity and scope of the AWP program. Beyond overall goals for performance (e.g., increases in
productivity), set specific goals. Ideally, these goals are linked with existing performance improvement
efforts. For example, goals for improved safety may be linked to process goals for integrating safety
considerations into IWPs and the work front management plan.
Getting started with pilots

The initial implementation of AWP should be done with select pilots that meet timing and staffing criteria.
Timing should align with project initiation. Smaller to medium-sized projects are good candidates because
they have a relatively short duration and thus promise completion and speed of lessons learned. Smaller
projects may also take less initial investment for deployment. (On the other hand, larger projects are more
likely to have dedicated resources and budgets to support investment – strike a balance in line with the
owner’s needs and overall portfolio.) When one owner organization began to implement AWP, it deployed
it on several repeated projects as part of a standard plant upgrade. The goal was the repeatability of
lessons learned and rapid deployment. This same owner also used WFP on a small but visible project at
its headquarters and on a medium-sized greenfield project to learn about AWP implementation and gain
support across the organization.
Moving to enterprise
Successful deployment of an AWP investment necessitates moving to enterprise implementation.
Ideally, lessons learned can quickly be deployed across the enterprise, although the size or scale of
the portfolio must be considered. Apart from gathering the benefits to projects, there are many benefits
to enterprise implementation (e.g., consistency of training, onboarding internal staff and external
partners, and economies of investment in tools and systems). Typically, organizations move to enterprise
implementations after the completion of initial pilots; all new projects should begin with AWP processes.
Note: this rapid expansion does not limit future improvements or freeze processes. Learning and
improvements are expected; however, it is considered easier to make improvements and share lessons
learned if the team shares a common basis in AWP procedures.
The scalability of AWP processes is important to consider for enterprise implementation. AWP is not a
single method or a monolithic process. Much of the documentation around AWP is described around a
large project for clarity of roles and actions. However, as with many project management approaches,
smaller projects may combine roles in terms of staffing and certain procedures may be scaled down.
AWP is no different; what is important is that all projects ascribe to the basic principles of AWP, such
as management by work packages and effective planning and constraint management. Smaller, routine
projects may only use basic planning activities for integrated procurement and deploy WFP. WFP is often
the starting point for early implementers to realize the benefits of work packaging and constraint removal
in the field. Larger projects may use full AWP for planning, design, construction, and startup.

The contracting quilt

Effective deployment of AWP in contracts is central to AWP success. Owners typically have a “quilt” of
contracts covering the project. These contracts have historically aligned, traditional deliverables such as
drawings and materials. Moving to a work package-based management system – where deliverables
are progressed and managed per package – is challenging to standard deliverables and processes. As
such, contracts must be aligned with expectations and AWP processes. Clarity around deliverables and
handover points is a necessary prerequisite to successful execution. For example, moving engineering
deliverables from typical drawing sets to Engineering Work Packages may require a change in internal
engineering processes to deliver completed detail designs earlier than typical. These deliverables need
to be described in contracts and reflected in realistic planning early in the project to ensure that the goals
for timing and sequence of deliverables are reasonable. This also speaks to the need for robust early
planning and participation by diverse stakeholders in project planning.
Central to this discussion is aligning contracts with the project delivery and execution strategy, and giving
care to the description of both deliverables and associated interfaces. When engineering, procurement,
and construction contracts are split, this increases the number of contractual boundaries. Avoid false
economies in procurement. Saving money on each contract (a typical goal of procurement organizations)
may lead to suboptimal results for the project. It is essential to identify what is good for the project when
assigning deliverables and putting in place contracts. This may require increasing costs in some areas
to meet the Path of Construction and gain overall benefits. In general, because AWP encourages early
planning, expect some project costs to shift earlier in the project and for savings to occur during field
implementation (or at fabrication yards in significant prefab and modular projects).
For all projects, the owner is a key decision-maker and provider of project guidance. AWP, by expanding
early planning and changing deliverables, emphasizes the owner’s ability to provide guidance early in the
project and have clarity of objectives. Consistency of those objectives is also desired – changes should
be made with care. Because AWP is a new process for many organizations, the owner’s staff must
provide the leadership and timely decision-making required to resolve problems. Attention to interface
management is important and key for owners to resource well in their AWP implementation.
Onboarding partners
Moving to AWP requires special attention to onboarding partner organizations. Many organizations
will have worked with the owner on previous projects and may have a general expectation of business
procedures. Changes in AWP should be spelled out clearly in RFPs and contracts.
As an example of good practice, one owner organization separately wrote to all potential partners during
the RFP stage, highlighting what had changed with the implementation of AWP, so details would not
be lost in contract language and to make expectations clear. This change is not just made for principal
service providers but is repeated for all procurements. Availability for questions and clarifications during
the proposal stage is also recommended.

Once contracted, each partner must be effectively onboarded into the project to understand its specific role
and interfaces with the AWP structure. The onboarding process may change with the level of involvement,
but more orientation is generally seen as better. It is helpful to spell out changes and the rationale for
these changes, so team members can better understand their roles and improve their contributions.
These onboarding sessions can augment typical project orientation and team-building activities.
Owner oversight and proactive monitoring of implementation against success metrics mark an important
continuation of onboarding activities to improve successful implementation. As with any new effort, do
not plan to receive 100% compliance, but do expect to drive continuous improvement.
Common traps that cause failure of AWP implementation

AWP requires a deliberate and thoughtful effort to implement well. Assign champions and set reasonable
expectations. As with any program, mandates that are not funded or endorsed by the personnel on the
project will have limited success. Leadership by managers and champions cannot be passive.
A member of RT-390 related the story of a young field engineer who said, “We tried AWP, and it did
not work.” When asked for more details about the implementation, the field engineer revealed that
management had dictated workface planning (WFP) but with no adjustments to the budget. The creation
of IWPs had been delegated to the field engineers with no reduction in their other responsibilities, and
each IWP had a four-week duration (compared to the typical rule of thumb of one week per crew). Given
this context, it is no surprise that this implementation had been unsuccessful.
One particularly difficult aspect of AWP implementation is that it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking,
“We already do AWP.” Because AWP builds on good project management practices, much of its content
can be familiar to practitioners. This can lead to misunderstandings and a lack of recognition of the
required changes to practice.
Salesmanship can also play a role in overpromising the capabilities of AWP. Careful understanding of
the true capabilities and experiences of firms providing AWP services is essential, as is the thoughtful
mapping of AWP to existing internal processes.
Because AWP touches many aspects of the project delivery cycle and moves controls from an activity-
based structure to work package tracking, it alters nearly all deliverables and information handoffs in
some way. It is difficult to add AWP processes to a project midstream; adding workface planning during
the Construction stage is the only recommended addition after project inception. Even in these cases, it
is recommended that WFP should commence at the start of construction and WFP should manage most
or all construction. Avoid implementation for a single trade or commodity.
The decision to adopt AWP cannot be taken lightly or in isolation. Commitment from management, the
identification of champions, thoughtful process implementation, education, and the incorporation of AWP
into contracts and deliverables are all important aspects of successful AWP execution. Reasonable
expectations must also be set in accordance with the maturity of implementation. Lack of these conditions
is grounds for failed implementation.

Final Words
Implementing AWP takes effort. It demands sustained effort to achieve success and extend it across
the enterprise. It is easy for companies to lose focus or fail to extend early wins into larger successes.
Fortunately, AWP can have some early wins by focusing on WFP and construction, and these promising
beginnings can provide the basis for further investment.
Moving from initial successes takes commitment, executive sponsorship, identification of champions, and
sustained education within the organization and with external partners. Full implementation of AWP is
ultimately a team effort that requires aligning work processes and contractual deliverables. Organizations
that have made – and sustained – efforts in AWP implementation have seen significant benefits to their
projects. AWP is becoming their way of doing business. All firms should examine their efforts and move
forward with their own efforts to adopt AWP.

Handbook A: Preliminary Planning and Design
Final Report 390

Handbook A – Preliminary Planning and Design
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. AWP Fundamentals

AWP is a project delivery framework that extends throughout the project lifecycle, from project scoping
and early planning through turnover delivery. AWP is an improvement to traditional project management
that promotes a disciplined approach to organizing and delivering the project by utilizing clearly defined
work packages at each project stage:
• Engineering Work Packages (EWPs)

• Procurement Work Packages (PWPs)
• Construction Work Packages (CWPs)
• Installation Work Packages (IWPs)
• System Work Packages (SWPs)
Work packaging and constraint management aim to remove guesswork from executing at the workface
by tightly defining the scope of all work involved and ensuring that all necessary resources for execution
are in place (CII/COAA 2013).
1.2. Previous CII Research into AWP

Previous CII work has provided insights into multiple aspects of AWP execution through research
teams, working groups, and the AWP Community for Business Advancement (AWP CBA). All existing
and upcoming work is continuously captured through the CII website (www.construction-institute.org).
Figure A-1 on the next page shows some key publications in the history of CII’s research into AWP.
In sum, AWP promotes “beginning with the end in mind” through robust planning to support construction.
The basis for successful implementation is set during the early planning phases, shifting resources and
effort earlier in the project timeline.
AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations A-2

ed Wor
Advanced Work Packaging:
Advanc h Workface Execution

Design throug
ing: Advanc
Packag Guidance Implementatioed Work Pac
kImplementation
Expert Intervi n Case Studie
ews s and
kaging:
RT-272, Enhanced Work Packaging: Design through WorkFace Execution
AWP implementation basics, definitions of AWP, workface planning (WFP), work breakdown structure
Implementa
tion Resource
272-2,
3.1 Resource 272-2, Version 3.1
Implementation
Version
Volume
I Volume II
Implementa
tion Resource
272-2,
Version
Volume
3.1
III
(WBS), EWP, CWP, IWP
Effective Project
Alignment
RT-310, Improving Engineering and Procurement Alignment and Coordination with Construction
Aligning engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC), supplier engagement, project execution
for Construction
Success
Implementation Resource 310-2

plan (PEP)
Validating Advanced Work
Packaging as a Best Practice
A Game Changer
RT-319, Transforming the Industry: Making the Case for AWP as a Standard (Best) Practice
AWP as a CII Best Practice, project performance benefits when AWP is implemented efficiently
Implementation Resource 319-2 (e.g., productivity, cost, safety, schedule, predictability, quality)
RT-330, Improving Frontline Supervision in Industrial Construction

Frontline supervision, roles of foremen and general foremen
Improving Frontline Supervision
in Industrial Construction
Final Report 330
ration
Integ
ved
Impro Supply Chain
g
of the ls Plannin
ing
in Materia Packag
Work
and
lity
RT-344, Improved Integration of the Supply Chain in Materials Planning and Work Packaging
I: Visibi
Part Impro
ved
of the Integ
in Materia Supp ration
ly Chain
and ls
Work Plannin
Packag g
Part ing
II: Inven
and tory Costs
Oppo
rtunit
ies
Final
Report
2.0
344 Final
Version
Report
344
Supply chain visibility
2.0
Version
RT-363, Integrating the Supply Chain with AWP Practices

Modernizing the Supply Chain
and Increasing the Value of Advanced Work Packaging
Final Report 363

Procurement, definition of PWP as an optional construct
Integrating Commissioning and Startup
into the AWP Work Process
RT-364, AWP-integrated Practices for Construction Completions, Commissioning, and Startup

Startup and commissioning, definition of SWP, data requirements for SWPs
Final Report 364
of
the Use kaging Pro
ting Pac moting
Promo ed Work
RT-DCC-04 and RT-365, Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging – Phases 1 and 2
Advanc the
Advanc ed Wo Use of
rk Pac
kaging
1 Phase
Phase 2
Final
Report
Final
DCC-04 Report
365
Barriers and solutions to AWP implementation, AWP Concierge tool and supporting documents
Final Report TC-01
RT-TC-01, Bridging the Gap between Engineering and Construction Piping 3D Models to Support
Advanced Work Packaging
Bridging the Gap between
Design and Construction Models to
Improve Advanced Work Packaging
To support AWP execution in the field

AWP “Digital Threads”
RT-TC-03, AWP Digital Threads to Enable Supply Chain Visibility on Capital Projects
to Enable Supply Chain Visibility on Capital Projects
Data definitions to support materials visibility for AWP execution

Final Report TC-03
Version 1.1
Figure A-1. CII Research Teams’ Contributions to AWP

1.3. How Is this Handbook Organized?

Handbook A provides guidance on Stage I: Preliminary Planning and Design. In creating it, RT-390 built
upon the work of previous CII research teams:
• RT-272 introduced Stage I: Preliminary Planning and Design, the project stage that includes project
definition; construction, commissioning, and energizing planning; Level 2 schedule refinement and
WBS development; and CWP and EWP boundary development (CII/COAA 2013).
• RT-364 expanded Stage I to include the SWP boundary development (CWP, EWP, and SWP
boundary development) (CII 2020a).
• RT-365 added a step to include Path of Construction (CII 2020c).
Handbook A seeks to provide actionable guidance and present an achievable path to accomplish the
steps of AWP: project definition; Path of Construction; construction, commissioning, and energizing
planning; Level 3 schedule refinement and WBS development; CWP and EWP boundary development;
and SWP boundary development.
The rest of Handbook A is divided into two sections:
• Chapter 2: Scope presents a flowchart with necessary actions to align the different disciplines and
ensure early coordination. Here, the key inputs and outputs for Stage I are presented; for instance,
the project contracting strategy and work packages mapped to WBS, respectively.
• Chapter 3: AWP Leading Practices outlines successful implementation through several categories
of information:
– Process and implementation steps
– Roles and resources
– Data, tools, and technology
– Culture
– Key performance indicators (KPIs)
– Integration with existing practices

Chapter 2
Scope
AWP Interactive Planning

Project Path of Construction
Set-up Kickoff Session
Start of
Stage I System Work Package
Project Development
Interactive Planning
Schedule
Path of Construction Development System Defined by
by CWP
P&IDs – Project
Schedule Aligned
Required on CWP
Engineering Site (ROS) Schedule
Alignment Procurement
Fabrication Dates Reviews
with CWPs Alignment
Alignment
with CWPs
with CWPs
CWP
CWP Bill of Release
Feasibility Materials
by CWP End of
Analysis
Stage I
Figure A-2. Action Flowchart for Stage I: Preliminary Planning and Design
Figure A-2 outlines the collaborative work processes that a project team should undertake during Stage I
to implement AWP successfully:
• AWP Project Set-up – lays the groundwork for success and allows the AWP leadership team to
adapt and shape the corporate standard AWP reference model to suit the needs of the project.
• Interactive Planning – formally brings together key project stakeholders from operations,
construction, engineering, procurement, key suppliers (e.g., engineering equipment, fabrication,
modules), and project controls to collectively provide input into the Path of Construction (PoC).
• Path of Construction Development – the PoC is a collaborative work process and this step
helps prepare project schedule sequencing, coding standards, CWP release plan, and CWP
interdependencies.
• Engineering Alignment with CWPs – structures and encodes the design tools and tracking
systems such that engineering deliverables can be associated with corresponding CWPs.
• Procurement Alignment with EWPs – structures the integration and alignment of procurement
with the PoC, corresponding CWPs, and schedule need dates.
• Fabrication Alignment with CWPs – integrates and aligns the digital data for modules and
material fabrication with the CWPs as they are defined during the PoC sessions.
• CWP Feasibility Analysis – assesses engineering (available data from vendors, timing for
engineering deliverables), materials (delivery dates aligned with site need dates), and other
constraints (work prioritization by project schedule, CWP scope) to determine whether CWPs can
be released and construction can begin.
• Required on Site (ROS) and Bill of Materials (BoM) by CWP – structure the integration and
alignment of material takeoffs by CWPs and delineate the POs by quantities with ROS dates aligned
to defined CWPs.

2.1. Key Inputs 2.2. Key Outputs

RT-272 defined the key inputs into Stage I Subject matter experts helped RT-390 outline the key
(CII/COAA 2013): outputs of Stage I:
• Definition of overall scope for the • The project team develops all baselines for project
work or project execution. The project execution plan is the key
• Definition of contracting and deliverable that encompasses all disciplines.
procurement plan • Integrated EPC and CSU resource-loaded schedule
• Definition of engineering, (Level 3)
procurement, construction, and • Create a total installed cost estimate by CWAs and
startup sequencing CWPs.
• Technical deliverables requirements • Path of Construction (PoC)
• Levels of design • Work breakdown structure (WBS)
• Define CWAs, CWPs, EWPs, and PWPs to support the
These inputs set up an AWP project for
PoC and SWPs.
success. Notably, RT-390 found that
• Assign tools and systems appropriately.
the project contracting strategy is
• Include AWP requirements in the contracting
particularly important for a successful
documents.
AWP project. In particular, EPC
• Data integration architecture
contracting is more efficient because it
• Shipping envelope
promotes the continuity of teams and
data throughout the project stages. • Engineering deliverables issued for design (IFD)
For instance, if Engineering (E) and – Site or location
– Plot plan
Construction (C) are awarded as separate
– Equipment list
contracts, that often creates a barrier – Piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs)
to team alignment and data continuity. – Line list
This situation is unfortunate, because – Instrument list
successful implementation relies on the – CSA structures lists
appropriate planning and provisions for – MTOs or BoMs per CWPs
data transfer and continuity, regardless of • Commissioning and Startup sequence and schedule
the contracting strategy employed. Please • Turnover systems defined in P&IDs
refer to the AWP Review and Owner’s • Early identification of constraints:
Guide (p. 1-1) for more information on the – Permitting
role of contracting strategies. – Overpass and road requirements
– Local municipalities
– Socioeconomic factors
• AWP lessons learned database

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is important to the AWP process and aligning functional
disciplines. The WBS can be used as the basis to align work scope:
1. Within a defined boundary, aligning with CWAs

2. Within a defined discipline, aligning with CWPs
The work scope and coding structure defined in the WBS could be used all the way down to the Installation
Work Packages (IWPs) level. Utilizing the WBS efficiently during the AWP project set-up can lead to
successful implementation.

Chapter 3
AWP Leading Practices
3.1. Process and Implementation Steps

Despite the significant effort required during this stage, RT-319 determined that the success of an AWP
project is captured primarily as productivity benefits during construction execution (CII 2015). However,
RT-390 identified that efficient planning in AWP projects can also present the following early benefits:
• Earlier guidance to engineering and procurement on need-by dates for design and information
deliverables
• Improved shared understanding of the scope
• Improved visibility into constraints during Path of Construction planning
• Improved clarity of priorities
• Alignment of procurement and engineering strategy with field/fabrication and startup strategy
• Clarity of information requirements/standards (plan for data quality)
• Improved incorporation of constructability into the design
RT-390 surveyed SMEs to assess these benefits (86 respondents), and Figure A-3 summarizes the
results. As the figure shows, respondents most commonly rated Earlier guidance to engineering and
procurement on need-by dates for design/information deliverables and Improved visibility into constraints
during Path of Construction planning to be of “Significant benefit.”
Improved incorporation of constructability into the design

Clarity of information requirements/standards
(plan for data quality)
Alignment of procurement and engineering strategy
with field/fabrication and startup strategy
Improved clarity of priorities
Improved visibility into constraints during
Path of Construction planning
Improved shared understanding of the scope
Earlier guidance to engineering and procurement on
need-by dates for design and information deliverables
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Not a benefit Somewhat of a benefit Moderate benefit Significant benefit (n=86)
Figure A-3. Observed Benefits in Early Planning for AWP Projects

The concept of work packaging is fundamental to the project management body of knowledge. Early
CII research on the topic focused on project controls (CII 1988) and defined a work package as “a
deliverable at the lowest level of the work breakdown structure” (PMI 1996). Since then, advancements
on AWP work and definitions have created a body of knowledge and processes that is unique to AWP
projects and follows robust definitions.
Figure A-4 shows how a project plot plan defines CWAs. The CWAs, CWPs, EWPs, IWPs, PWPs, and
SWPs are all integral processes to AWP projects; however, not all organizations or projects structure their
work packages and associations in the same way. For instance, the PWP is an optional construct. Some
organizations do not use PWPs and may organize their system to better associate the POs associated
with the materials and equipment assigned to each CWP. In addition, other organizations may employ a
one-to-one or one-to-many association for CWP and EWP scope.
CWA 10 CWA 09 CWA 08 CWA 07 CWA 06

LCGO Filter Debutanizer De-Ethanizer Frac Stripper Diesel Stripper
CWA 05A North/South Pipe Rack
CWA 04 Compressor
CWA 02 Reactor
CWA 05B E/W Pipe Rack CWA 03 Scrubber
CWA 01 Heater
CWA 11 MCC
Figure A-4. Example of How CWAs Can Be Defined on a Project Plot Plan

Figure A-5 presents the associations CII research

supported for successful AWP implementation. For EWP
example, one CWP may correspond to one or many
EWP(s) and PWP is an optional construct.
The structure of these work package associations PWP CWP SWP

is a major process decision each project team
has to make during an AWP project. For mature
organizations, this process is often structured at the
enterprise level and followed throughout the portfolio IWP
of AWP projects. However, AWP guidance supports
the set-up of work packages and their associations
Figure A-5. The Interactions of Work Packages
for organizations at all levels of maturity.
Supported by AWP Projects
To achieve efficient implementation, project teams can utilize the principles outlined below.
• The Construction Work Package (CWP) is the central work package of an AWP project. It defines
a logical and manageable division of work within the construction scope. RT-272 recommended
developing CWPs by discipline, so different CWPs do not overlap within a discipline. CWPs are
typically aligned with a bid package; however, a contractual scope may contain more than one
CWP to facilitate management and alignment among disciplines. CWPs should align with the WBS
structure. Each can contain one or more EWPs, and they serve as a basis for the development of
detailed IWPs (CII/COAA 2013).
• An Engineering Work Package (EWP) is an engineering deliverable that supports the
development of CWPs and IWPs. As a result, EWPs should align with the construction and startup
sequence and priorities. EWPs typically include the scope of work with a document list, drawings,
installation specifications, vendor data, lists, and a bill of materials (BoM). There should be at least
one EWP per CWP; however, it is common to have multiple EWPs under a single CWP to divide the
scope and engineering disciplines more efficiently.
Figure A-6 shows how the different

types of work packages interrelate. EWP2
Project teams establish these EWP1 EWP3 EWP4 EWP5
interactions based upon boundaries CWP1 CWP2
and scope. In this example, CWP4
and EWP9 have a one-to-one EWP6
relationship, while CWP1 includes
EWP7 EWP8 EWP9
EWP1, EWP2, and EWP3. CWP3 CWP4
SCOPE/PLOT PLAN
Figure A-6. Sample Scope/Plot Plan Showing

How EWPs Are Contained in CWPs (CII/COAA 2013a)

• The Installation Work Package (IWP) is the deliverable that enables a construction work crew
to perform the work in a safe, predictable, and efficient manner. RT-390 recommends to have
each IWP capture limited scope, so a crew can complete each IWP in about a week and ideally
no more than two weeks. IWPs are produced by workface planners on site and should include all
pertinent information to perform the work. The use of IWPs should be accompanied by constraint
management so that each IWP is constraint-free by its scheduled start date. There are typically
multiple IWPs for each CWP because the IWPs capture a small work scope executable in up to two
weeks’ time (CII/COAA 2013).
• A Procurement Work Package (PWP) is an optional construct to support the capabilities of the
supply chain process, including sourcing, logistics, delivery and receiving, and materials storage
before installation. Organizations may choose to deploy PWPs as a mechanism to match the
components of purchase orders (POs) with the corresponding work packages. PWP boundaries
typically align with CWP boundaries (one to one), but a CWP may contain one or more PWPs (one
to many). PWPs include all materials and related procurements that belong to that CWP to support
constraint management and materials allocation.
• System Work Packages (SWPs) are the latest addition to formal AWP definitions (since 2020).
An SWP is a deliverable that enables a commissioning crew to perform work in a safe, predictable,
measurable, and efficient manner. An SWP should be mapped to predecessor IWPs to ensure
that the PoC enables an efficient startup sequence. SWPs include elements such as equipment
and systems included, tests required, documentation required (to start and to finish), procedures,
responsibilities, constraints to monitor, and he information and engineering documents needed to
execute work. Note: the boundaries of defined systems may cross multiple IWPs. As such, IWPs
and SWPs have a many-to-many relationship between.
The project team needs to examine all work packages and their interactions. The final development is an
iterative process. Several key steps occur during the Path of Construction workshop:
• CWAs are finalized.

• Preliminary CWPs, EWPs, and PWPs are defined with input from the appropriate experts
(Construction, Engineering, and Procurement, respectively).
• Preliminary SWPs are also developed. The transition from area- to system-based is critical in AWP
projects; therefore, commissioning and startup experts need to be included in the PoC workshop.
During Stage I, it is critical to consider the visibility into execution and “predict” challenges that may arise.
Some key aspects to set up the team for success:
• Ensure WBS is consistent across functional groups.

• Break down estimates by component to IWP and, as they are installed, require progress is to be
rolled up from IWP to CWP to CWA (to ensure all package associations).

• Identify early constraints and incorporate them in the PoC, considering the following elements:
– Long lead materials and equipment – critical path, consider per discipline, constraints, critical to
execution (approval date may be critical)
– Constructability constraints
– Modularization strategy – CII Research Teams 283 and 396 outlined the principles for efficiently
leveraging modularization in AWP projects to exploit the strategic benefits of moving fabrication
efforts away from the jobsite (CII 2012, CII 2023a). In AWP projects, the modularization strategy
and required expertise need to be considered during PoC, work packaging, and early constraint
identification. Important considerations include scheduling, required on-site dates, and
considerations related to delivery and the laydown area.
• Identifying commissioning sequence and ensuring that systems completion informs PoC and maps
to CWPs (high-level mapping of systems completions turnover).
• Creating and publishing plot plans or layouts with CWAs. The plot plan serves as the most tangible
compilation of project physical scope and is the effective “root” document for future AWP efforts.
AWP teams perform formal reviews and interactive planning sessions, where all parties are able to
provide and discuss input based on project-specific hard constraints, requirements, previous experience,
lessons learned, and input from layout subject matter experts (SMEs). Developing the plot plan and PoC
are iterative processes; the project will need to have regular involvement from the project construction
team and stakeholder SMEs.
More specifically, specific types of events encourage the regular involvement of the project construction
team and stakeholder SMEs:
• Interactive Planning (IAP) sessions should be organized with clear requirements to prepare the
different disciplines. All relevant stakeholders (e.g., owner, engineer, procurement, modularization/
fabrication, operations, and construction contractor) will gather to develop AWP project set-up plans
during the first interactive planning (IAP) session. Table A-1 presents this session’s steps and goals.
Table A-1. AWP Project Set-up during the First Interactive Planning (IAP) Session:
Summary of Preparation Steps and Expected Outcomes
Preparation Steps Goals and Outcomes

IAP objectives and agenda AWP project scope
Session attendee list AWP organization chart
Session invitation notice AWP resource plans
Latest scope narrative AWP activity coding
Schedule, estimate, and AWP automation plan
procurement constraints AWP training plan
Stakeholders prepared to Reporting and tracking
effectively participate
Metrics and monitoring

• Formalized Path of Construction (PoC) events should be held with proper documentation and
diagrams of session outputs. The PoC is the basis for the master schedule. It captures expert input on
safety, design, layout, and constructability considerations and needs to cover the following elements:
– Site logistics and access
– Site topography and drainage
– Modularization
– Hot work, tie-in locations, and refinery operations limitations (critical for brownfield work)
– Crew density
– Construction contracting strategy
– Sequencing, interdependencies, and weather
– Heavy haul and heavy lift
– Procurement, material and module supply, and delivery constraints
– Consider systems completion, overall turnover sequence, and plant startup: engage startup
and commissioning personnel during the interactive planning and PoC sessions so their
requirements will be reflected in the PoC. Identify at least the main systems needed for startup.
– Unit layout and long-term maintenance considerations
Figure A-7 presents the recommended

structure for a PoC workshop, including
Representation – Considerations –
the expertise and input considerations Expertise Required: Input Required:
required to achieve a development and
release plan for all AWP packages. As was
Operations & Site and
mentioned two pages earlier, developing Commissioning Applicable Conditions
the PoC package is an iterative process.

A preliminary PoC workshop may Engineering
Startup Systems and
Sequence Strategy
take place even before Stage I, during Path of
Construction
Stage 0 (Pre-implementation). As scoping Development Modularization and
Construction
is finalized and data become available, Preassembly Strategy
the formal PoC workshop at Stage I

Procurement
captures up-to-date information to deliver Procurement
Supply Plan
the final AWP execution plan; final CWPs, Results Required:
EWPs, and PWPs; and preliminary IWPs Project Management Contracting Quilt
and Project Controls and Labor Packages
and SWPs.
AWP Execution Plan
Mature organizations often add conditions
to deliverables to track workflow better.
CWAs, CWPs, EWPs,
These conditions can help track the and Release Plans
planning progress and identify the right
party to overcome potential constraints. Preliminary
IWPs and SWPs
For example, deliverables status can
be tagged as “preliminary,” “in need of
[something],” or “final.” Figure A-7. Path of Construction Development

2.2. Roles and Resources

Ideally, all stakeholders (i.e., owner, EPC contractor, key vendors) work cohesively as one team during
the early planning stage. If the project does not operate with an EPC contract, Stage I should solicit
construction and commissioning input. In this case, the owner needs to have an active role in ensuring
the continuity of the teams’ efforts. (See the AWP Review and Owner’s Guide (p. 1-1) for continuity of
teams and contracting-related issues.)
There is no separate AWP team: project teams do AWP. AWP is an execution framework that is tied
to the project; therefore, the project team and AWP team are not separate entities. However, a separate
AWP team can be employed for advising, particularly for early AWP implementers. Also, organizations
may adopt an AWP implementation group at the enterprise level to advise project teams.
Consider the following key aspects in terms of roles and responsibilities during Stage I:
• The project manager has overall accountability (responsibility) for the project and the success of AWP.
• Project management needs to lead the interactive planning (IAP) and have the overall vision of the
Path of Construction (PoC) outcome.
• The project team, including construction and all stakeholders, plans and facilitates PoC workshops.
• The construction manager leads the PoC workshop and is responsible for the CWP release plan.
• Procurement must accommodate material delivery to match the PoC – CWPs under AWP
methodologies.
• Construction must be a significant part of the conversation that leads the AWP effort, beginning with
the proposal.
• Managers of construction automation, AWP, engineering, and supply chain must optimize the
engineering effort to achieve the desired level of construction data.
• The construction automation manager and engineering must also align on AWP data requirements.
• The role of digital data coordinator (identified by RT-363) is crucial to establishing the data attributes
and data flow for AWP projects (CII 2021).
• Commissioning and startup expertise is critical throughout Stage I. The experts can provide input
on SWP development and data requirements for the transition from area to system. However, in
large projects, early planning may happen several years before the Startup and Commissioning
stage. As a result, it is often a challenge to maintain the same team of commissioning experts
throughout the project duration.

The interface between the project manager and AWP manager is critical in AWP projects. While
they have different responsibilities, these two roles need to be seamlessly integrated. The AWP manager
(or AWP champion) provides direct support on all aspects of AWP set-up and implementation and reports
to the PM for final decision-making. In smaller projects, the PM may also act as AWP manager. Table A-2
outlines examples of information and interactions between the two roles.
Table A-2. Examples of Interactions between the Project Manager and AWP Manager
What the PM Does What the AWP Manager Does
• Monitors and shares the level of AWP • Gives the PM a cost-benefit analysis of
implementation and tool use on the project. AWP processes for the project.
• Appoints leads to follow the mandate to • Gives the PM input into tool use
use AWP. throughout the project.
• Gives feedback focused on AWP • Leverages PM feedback to improve the
processes (e.g., any issues or advantages). AWP process.
• Ensures that the PM gets up-to-date,
accurate dashboard reports.
2.3. Data, Tools, and Technology

AWP increases the demands to manage, control, and integrate data across disciplines. Thus, teams
must consider and outline a plan for efficient data management. CII Working Group 19-01 presented the
principal AWP data requirements outlined by project phase in Figure A-8.
Integrated Advanced Work Packaging Flow Chart

STAGE I STAGE II STAGE III STAGE IV
Preliminary Planning and Design Detailed Engineering Construction Operations
Construction Schedule CWP

Detailed IWP System
Project and Refinement and EWP Schedule Supply
Engineering Construction Development Turnovers, Startup & Handover Operations
Definition Engineering and WBS Boundary Development Chain
Schedule & Execution Commissioning
Planning Development Development
DR010-01 DR050 DR150 DR010-05

Project Information Equipment Design Procurement IWPs
DR010-02 DR070 DR170 DR260

CWAs Piping Design Structural Detailing Constraints
DR080 DR180 DR270

DR010-03 3D Modeling Steel Fabrication Site Materials
CWPs
DR090 DR190 DR290
DR010-04 Civil-Structural Design Pipe Detailing Site Progress
EWPs
DR100 DR200
DR020-01 Electrical & Pipe Fabrication DR010-06
Schedule Activities Instrumentation Design SWPs
DR230
DR120 Contractor Scope DR310
Document Control Items Completions
DR140
Estimating and Cost
Figure A-8. AWP Data Requirements Developed by CII Working Group 19-01 (CII 2023b)

RT-390 identified an increased need for data integrity with AWP projects as compared to non-AWP
projects. As a result, as projects and organizations mature their AWP implementation plan, they should
establish a data architecture for connecting the different data and promote digitalization. The architecture
structure should be set up during Stage I. Preliminary planning design. Engineering plays a key role in
generating the project data (digital model, AWP tags/labels) and integrating data from different sources
(e.g., vendors). Construction has unique challenges in encompassing data from different disciplines
(engineering, procurement, startup) to implement AWP successfully. Figure A-9 presents an example
of an AWP data architecture developed by a major owner. According to them, such a structure enables
visibility in the required data needs early on and allows continuous monitoring as the project progresses.
Schedule
Project Controls
Logis�cs Li�ing
Engineering Fabrica�on Construc�on Startup Opera�ons

Worker
HSSE
Integrated Construc�on
Integrated
Global Engineering AWP
Advanced Work Packaging
COM Asset
FEED
Data 4D
Commissioning
System
Opera�ng
Documents Path of Construc�on Systems
PC Maintenance
Data TT Progressive
Integrity
Comple�ons
Documents Track & Trace
Data Readiness Work planning
Onsite Materials
Spares
Permit control
2D Schema�cs OP CR etc.
Owner’s Portal Construc�on Risk Exis�ng AI
3D Model Emerging AI
ET ST
Equip Telema�cs
Smart Torque
Data Sheets
CS DT
Vendor Construc�on
RTP Digital Twin
Real-�me DSim
Data
documents
Procurement Safety
Progressing Dynamic Simulators Laser scan data
Materials Management As-built 3D model
Cer�fica�ons
Manuals
EDW
EDW Asset data warehouse
Project Engineering Data Warehouse (including Document Control System) Master documents
Regularity documents
Figure A-9. Example of an AWP Data Architecture Structure from a Mature Owner
The contractor is usually responsible for the tools and technologies that manage the data. The owner
may outline contractual requirements for reporting, but the contractor is given flexibility to employ the
tools and technologies that best align with its practices. For AWP, contractors need to expand their
existing tools (when they have lower AWP maturity) or create new ones (with higher maturity) to respond
to the changes in deliverables, model attributes, and work processes.

Data visualization is key to AWP. The ability not only to manage data, but to visualize data development
and align data with the 3D model, is fundamental. In AWP, efficient data management also relates to the
coding structure for CWPs, EWPs, and IWPs. A leading practice related to coding structures is tying all
work packages to the project’s work breakdown structure (WBS). While the coding structure can differ
among projects and organizations, it is essential to establish for all AWP projects.
As can be seen in Figure A-10,
CWP IWP Coding Example CWP EWP Coding Example
the WBS coding structure
WBS WBS
captures a work package’s
part of the project, its related
Serial Number Bldg. CWA CWP IWP Serial Number Bldg. CWA CWP EWP
CWA and CWP, and how it
aligns with the project schedule
and attributes in the digital
AT.1191-201X-331A-02-01-03 AT.1191-201X-331A-02-01-E1
design model. The last two IWPs are not included in the project schedule.
digits change to reflect the Workface planners use IWP coding to develop and track IWPs.
project discipline: EWPs for IWP progress rolls up into the CWPs within the project schedule.
engineering and IWPs for
Figure A-10. Example of an AWP Coding Structure
construction execution.
2.4. Culture
AWP promotes collaboration and alignment with engineering, procurement, construction, suppliers, and
all other functions throughout the phases of the project. Collaboration cultivates a culture of trust and
respect, sharing knowledge and focusing on well-defined solutions that will improve field productivity
and safe construction execution, maintenance, and operations. Some key aspects of this culture extend
throughout the project stages:
• Transparency – Within the company, share information by phase, following the AWP process by
EPC for lump sum (e.g., IWP, coding structure). Transparency relates to the willingness to share
information and to make it easily accessible. This culture change promotes collaboration and
supports optimizing project outcomes as a common goal for all stakeholders.
• Change the mindset of project managers – When PMs invest in the AWP process and embrace
it throughout the project, AWP is more likely to succeed. PMs directly oversee the AWP manager
and approve AWP-related decisions. Two of the most important changes for PMs in an AWP project
are the way they report progress and the associated payments:
– Reporting progress – Set rules of credit from a commodity rate to work package
measurement, including the punch lists.
– Progress payment – Define progress payment based upon work package completeness or
agreed-to metrics and milestones during the Design, Procurement, and Construction phases.

The role of the PM is critical in ensuring adherence to the AWP processes. In order to achieve the desired
progress and payments outcomes, it is essential for the PM to ensure that the project team is aligning
with and executing the AWP program. This includes developing and managing AWP release plans.
Some project stages require a more significant culture change to improve the way the work is performed.
For instance, during Design and Detailed Engineering, AWP implementation requires a culture change
geared toward collaboration. This requires some changes in functions and roles:
• Reallocation of resources
• Engineering efficiency
• Integrating engineering with construction
• Change management
2.5. KPIs
On an AWP project, basing progress measurement on rules of credit enables tracking at the work
package level and improves visibility of the associated scope of work status according to PoC priorities.
Different KPIs can be tracked at various stages of implementation; however, the team needs to plan for
progress tracking and put the proper tools in place. Defining the right KPIs and selecting the best tools to
track them also relates to the organization’s existing processes and level of maturity.
Teams that use AWP (particularly early implementers) cannot expect to achieve maximum productivity
benefits with AWP unless they establish the right metrics. Figure A-11 presents a roadmap with basic
steps toward establishing AWP KPIs. The underlying sentiment is that you cannot control what you
don’t measure, so implement a proper measurement and control system and use it through the
AWP initiative.
Controls: System
Target Benefits
• Leadership Project
Establish • Technology performance Results
milestones and • Procedures improvement
metrics of success initiative
• Team training
Measurements:
Proactively measure and • Target benefits Easy-to-read
monitor initiatives against “success-driven”
defined “success metrics” • Interim milestones dashboards
and metrics to success
Figure A-11. Roadmap for Establishing AWP KPIs

Project teams cannot measure results without establishing the right metrics. The necessary controls
need to in place to capture the progress for different systems. The actual results are compared against
set measurements to determine the path forward for each project.
Early on, establish metrics for tracking engineering and procurement progress to confirm completeness
of AWP attributes for construction and startup. These metrics can differ based on maturity and enterprise
requirements; however, the following items can act as a checklist during Stage I to ensure the team has
set up appropriate metrics:
• The 3D model attributes have tags associated with EWP and systems ID for Startup.
• There is a master tag register with the attributes, including system attributes, discipline attributes,
and CWPs containing all related tags.
• During the Construction phase, the construction planner receives all of the attributes from the
engineers early enough and according to CSU priorities.
• Vendor data attributes – parent-to-child tags. Do we have complete set of package components
(BoM) when the material arrives?
• Track completed IWP (monitoring start, finish, performance, and punch plan vs. actual).
• Evaluate the readiness of SWP and the turnover package (plan vs. actual).
• Report EWP and CWP constraints during the Design phase.
• Report PWP constraints during the Execution phase.
• Report equipment and bulks constraints by IWP during the Execution phase.
• During the Execution phase, maintain IWP status vs. progress reporting against baseline.
The contracting type and maturity of implementation can affect which KPIs are set during Stage I and
tracked during system completion. For instance, the traditional rules of credit and earned value system
lack visibility during the early stages and, as such, need adjustment for the AWP framework (e.g., progress
payments to engineering for EWP completion). Visibility is also necessary during execution, in the form
of identifying progress toward achieving the goals (e.g., completed IWPs).

2.6. Integration with existing business processes

The guidance outlined in this handbook relates to the early stages of a project, particularly Stage I:
Preliminary Planning and Design as defined in previous CII publications (CII/COAA 2013). However,
terminology often varies in the construction industry, depending on both the sector and organizational
context. For instance, the oil & gas sector often uses “select-define-execute” to characterize project
stages. In addition, industrial projects commonly use FEL1, FEL2, and FEL3, but different organizations
give them different boundaries.
These stages dictate the actions that need to be taken for successful AWP implementation, investment
decisions, and the stakeholders involved. Figure A-12 presents an overview of how the different
terminologies for project stages align:
• Stage 0 captures the Pre-Implementation (or Opportunity Framing) stage.

• Stage I includes FEL1, FEL2, and FEL3 or the Pre-FEED and FEED stages.
• The end of Stage I is tied with a final investment decision, with a total installed cost estimate class
of ±10%.
For more information on enterprise adoption of the AWP framework please refer to the AWP Review and
Owner’s Guide (p. 1-1) and the Enterprise Guide (p. EG-1).
Select Phase Define Phase Execute Phase

Final Investment Decision
STAGE 0 STAGE I STAGE II STAGE III STAGE IV
Opportunity
Framing
FEL 1 FEL 2 FEL 3 EPC CSU
Pre-FEED FEED
Figure A-12. Reconciling the Terminologies Used to Describe the Phases of a Construction Project
Figure A-13 on the next page summarizes the milestones that should occur prior to moving to the next
stage. In an AWP project, many actions are shifted earlier to achieve better integration in terms of
stakeholders, work package priorities aligned with the schedule, data from suppliers to the design team,
and procurement alignment with on-site need dates. This summary of AWP steps can act as a guide for
successful implementation.


Start of Ready for Ready for
Stage Gate Review Stage Gate Review Construction Commissioning Startup
Preliminary
construction
Preliminary Path EWP-CWP-SWP (Prior to IFC
of Construction First IAP IAP IAP const. start) schedule
Session Session Session alignment IFD
PoC PoC L3 PC 60% 90% L4 IWPs IWPs SWPs
Project scoping Constructability Iterative Path of CWPs Line lists, SWPs Constructability Estimates 60% 90% IWPs QA & turnover
strategy review Construction EWP Equip. lists, CSU team review Model Model issued for documentation
Modularization Instr. lists execution
Determine WBS definition strategy sequence PoC, schedule, (based (based Area to systems
Assessment AWP scalable identified Civil-Struct. and CWPs on PoC) on PoC) transition
CWAs identified Schedule
category Engineering lists aligned baseline finalized SWPs
AWP coding
Determine structure deliverables MTOs Turnover systems
IWP review

procurement sequence planned defined IFA
and approval IWP progress and
strategy Contracting strategy ISOs and close-out tracking
PWP Material Early constraints Constraint
Long lead items strategy requisition identified drawings
identification Status visualization
Turnover systems MTOs issued and removal (Execution)
sequence identified
Legend
Project Milestones Interdisciplinary Sessions Engineering Gate
Figure A-13. AWP Timeline Capturing Project Milestones, IAP Sessions, Engineering Steps, and Review Gates
A-21
The AWP timeline captures the timing of critical steps to achieve successful AWP implementation;
however, the parties responsible for each action will be determined by the project owner and contracting
strategy. For instance, stage gate reviews may signify an invitation to bid (ITB) to involve contractors in
Stage I. Alternatively, an owner may employ expertise (internally or outsource) and involve contractors at
the final investment decision (Stages II through IV). However, these steps have to take place along with
provisions for continuity of information and data transfer to ensure seamless integration for a successful
project.

Final Report 390

Chapter 1
Introduction

and early planning to turnover delivery. AWP is an improvement to traditional project management that
promotes a disciplined approach to organizing and delivering the project by utilizing clearly defined
Work Packages (SWPs). The basis for successful AWP implementation is set during the Preliminary
Planning and Design stage (see guidance in Handbook A); however, the Detailed Engineering phase is
critical to project success and requires changes in process and culture.
Recent work by CII RT-365 provided evidence of the need for additional guidance by identifying the
following barriers to integrating AWP and engineering (CII 2020c):
• The engineering company’s unfamiliarity with AWP benefits, concepts, and process
• The engineering company’s misperception that its processes are compliant with AWP
• Contract type’s impact on AWP implementation
• Perceived change in engineering work sequence
• Construction expertise input to develop the Path of Construction
• Aligning engineering deliverables with construction sequencing
• Developing engineering schedule based on AWP deliverables
• Tracking engineering deliverables’ progress based on AWP deliverables
• Lack of tools and data standardization
• Lack of attributes in the design model
As a result, while there is clearly a need for change in the engineering and design process, there is also
a gap in identifying which specific process changes could achieve alignment.
AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations B-2


Handbook B provides actionable guidance to achieve AWP benefits during Stage II: Detailed Engineering.
As defined by RT-272, this stage includes Level 3 schedule development, EWP-based controls, and
Level 4 detailed construction schedule (CII/COAA 2013).
The rest of Handbook B is divided into two sections:
• Chapter 2: Scope presents the key differences between detailed engineering in traditional and
AWP projects. It uses a flowchart to show necessary actions to ensure engineering alignment
before the start of Stage II. This handbook also presents the key inputs and outputs for Stage II.
• Chapter 3: AWP Leading Practices outlines successful implementation through several categories
of information:
– Culture

Chapter 2
Scope
The Detailed Engineering stage is different for AWP and traditional (non-AWP) projects. Figure B-1
presents some key features of this stage on an AWP project.
Ownership in CWP boundary definitions by Standardized reporting of Bill of Materials

construction with early project engagement 1 5 (BOM) quantities by CWP for procurement
Leveraged use of engineering lists to control EWP delivery plan to set and track engineering
CWP scope definition of contract packages 2 6 deliverables in relationship to CWPs
Rigor applied to 3D model attribution to reliably Formal identification, communication, and

automate assignment of CWPs and IWPs 3 7 tracking of constraints on EWPs
Automated development of 4D models Incorporation of updated CWP priorities and

linking schedule activities to CWPs 4 8 need dates into the EWP delivery plan
Figure B-1. Key Features of the Detailed Engineering Stage on an AWP Project
Because EWPs are developed during Stage I (described in Handbook A), many distinctions outlined in
Figure B-1 were set earlier in the project, before the Detailed Engineering stage started. It is important
for an AWP project to establish channels of communication and continuity of information, particularly if
different contractors performing the work at FEED (Stage I) and Detailed Engineering (Stage II). Figure B-2
presents which action steps need to be established earlier for the engineering teams to perform their
work effectively during Stage II.
Document target Identify input Develop EWP

engineering dependencies for delivery plan to Publish EWP
deliverables engineering document path delivery plan
per CWP deliverables of engineering
Identify input Track status of

“need” dates and EWP deliverables
status to meet by CWP and
EWP dates constraints
Start of Establish AWP

Stage I data fields on End of
engineering Stage I
deliverables Produce Review and validate Publish Stage I
Stage I AWP coding AWP deliverables
deliverables structure and data checks with BOM and
? Yes
for Engineering fields set-up estimates by CWP
Establish model
organization and No
coding structures
for AWP
Figure B-2. Setting up Stage II for Success

In particular, the top part of the flowchart in Figure B-2 refers to the iterative cycle from the preliminary
Path of Construction (PoC) and the following interactive planning sessions (IAPs). The bottom part of the
figure presents the flow of information from the start of Stage I to bill of materials (BoM) consolidation and
before starting the EPC stage.

Subject matter experts identified the key inputs to Subject matter experts identified the key outputs
Stage II: of Stage II:
• Stage I deliverables: • Sequence of engineering deliverables

– Strategies for modularization, fabrication, • Final EWPs (i.e., all drawings accounted for
and heavy transport and matched with CWPs/IWPs)
– Strategies for contracting and the project
• Schedule with procurement – critical paths
execution plan.
are fundamental, but schedule levels may
– List of project-critical equipment
vary by organization.
– Path of Construction
• 3D model organized by CWAs and CWPs
– CWAs
– CWPs • EWP deliverable plan
– Commissioning sequence – preliminary • AWP requirements in vendor, fabricator, and
SWPs subcontractor contracts
• AWP implementation plan with a budgetary • AWP systems integration bench-test
estimate and allocation for support • Level 4 schedule by refined CWPs
• Plot plans with demarcated CWAs/CWPs and • CWP release plan
critical equipment layouts
• 4D or 5D visualizations (optional)
• Path of Construction visualization
• First-check estimate (engineering 30% to
• Level 3 schedule with construction activities 40% complete) on final cost
by CWP and milestone deliverables for EWPs
and PWPs, as well as the turnover and • AWP subcontractor enablement program
commissioning scope of work • Contract release by CWP with the set of
• Training, commissioning, and startup plans associated EWPs delivered at 100% issued
with a commissioning systems list mapped to for construction (IFC)
related CWPs – Note: delivering EWPs at 100% IFC
should be “the gold standard.” In some
• Early constraints identification
cases, the owner and EPC contractor
(e.g., permitting, overpass or road
will have agreed upon a percentage
requirements, local municipalities,
of buffer to upfront work for releasing
socioeconomic factors)
deliverables.

Chapter 3

As has been seen in Figure B-1, different features and changes take place during the Detailed Engineering
phase for AWP vs. traditional projects. RT-390 identified changes that are commonly observed by
subject matter experts (SMEs) and ascertained the directional change (i.e., increase, remain the same,
or decrease) for key changes by surveying other industry experts. Informed by the survey results, RT-390
identified the key changes in design for AWP projects:
• Change in the sequence of engineering deliverables (e.g., sequence of finish/details, sequence of

major systems, closer coordination with the construction and procurement schedule)
• Change in attributes of digital design model to be compliant with CWPs
• Change in rules of credit to progress by engineering work packages
Figure B-3 presents the frequency of changes observed in AWP projects based on 73 respondents. The
results indicated that the most commonly observed change during the Design phase in AWP projects was
Change in sequence of engineering deliverables (93%). AWP relies on work packaging for engineering
(Engineering Work Packages (EWPs)) with the goal of sequencing engineering deliverables to align
with the schedule priorities and support construction needs. By contrast, on traditional EPC projects,
engineers often produce deliverables based on their discipline (e.g., piping) without considering schedule
priorities.
Change in sequence of engineering deliverables

(e.g., sequence of finish/details, sequence of
major systems, closer coordination with the
construction and procurement schedule)
Change in attributes of digital design model

to be compliant with CWPs
Change in rules of credit to progress

by engineering work packages
(n=73) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure B-3. Respondents’ Observed Changes in Design Work Practices for AWP/WFP Projects

To achieve the benefits during early planning and execution, organizations need to implement changes
that align with the AWP framework in the project lifecycle. For example, the construction management
team is engaged early in the preliminary planning design to establish the Path of Construction (PoC)
in collaboration with key project stakeholders, develop construction work packages, hold integrated
planning sessions and constructability reviews, and develop a Level 3 schedule to support AWP.
Similarly, engineering teams change their processes to assemble a schedule of engineering deliverables
supporting the PoC and report design progress at the engineering work package (EWP) level.
CII RT-365 identified barriers to aligning the engineering/design phase with AWP (CII 2020c):
• Engineering companies misperceive that their processes are compliant with AWP.
• Perceived change in engineering work sequence
• Engineering companies’ unfamiliarity with AWP benefits, concepts, and process
As a result, while the need for change in the engineering and design process has been established,
there is a gap in identifying the specific process changes to achieve alignment. To this end, the survey
investigated (1) which process-level changes occur during the early stages of the Design phase in AWP
projects; and (2) how these processes compare with traditional (non-AWP) delivery methods.
In utilizing the AWP approach, designers have to follow priorities that align with the Construction Work
Packages (CWPs), meaning that work cannot begin on the deliverables for a new CWP until the previous
one has closed. The benefit of this approach is that there are fewer schedule delays in the field due to
incomplete engineering information. At the same time, while this aspect is the greatest process change,
it is often perceived as “inefficient” by designers who are accustomed to begin by designing “low-hanging
fruit,” such easy foundations wherever they occur at various places around the project.
The changes discussed in Figure B-3 and above require further process steps to be achieved. For
instance, the additional attributes in the digital model require data integrity to accurately capture labels
related to different work packages, and often more engineering hours earlier in the project to reconcile
priorities and build a comprehensive model. As a result, RT-390 identified the following needed process
changes:
• Engineering hours earlier in the project

• Engineering hours during construction execution (e.g., less RFIs, punch list)
• Input and information deliverables from key suppliers
• Need for data integrity (e.g., consistency of line numbers, tags)

The SMEs the team surveyed qualitatively assessed the directional change of these steps to show
how AWP compared to traditional projects. Figure B-4 presents how survey participants assessed the
relative need on AWP vs. non-AWP projects for data integrity, input or information from key suppliers,
and engineering hours in early planning and construction change (i.e., increase, remain about the same,
or decrease).
Need for data integrity

(consistency of line numbers, tags, etc.)
Earlier input or information deliverables

from key suppliers
Engineering hours during construction

execution (less RFIs, punch list)
Engineering hours earlier in the project
(n=74) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Increase About the Same Decrease
Figure B-4. Respondents’ Assessments of How Needs Differed on AWP vs. non-AWP Projects
These findings indicate that Need for data integrity is the process that has the most observed change in
AWP projects. Of all survey participants, 66% observed an increased need for data integrity compared to
traditional projects. This result aligns with the identified change in attributes in the digital model. Because
AWP aims to integrate engineering and construction, it sets the goal that all 2D deliverables be exported
from the 3D model to ensure seamless integration, fewer changes on site, and higher productivity.
In addition, 55% of the SMEs found that Engineering hours earlier in the project have increased for AWP
compared to traditional projects. This is because AWP relies on engineering input during the front-end
engineering design (FEED) stage, where project stakeholders set up the Path of Construction, work
packages, and planning for AWP deliverables. As a result, the need for basic engineering at this stage is
often increased to achieve better alignment with construction and efficient AWP implementation.
The identified changes highlight the importance to adjust the engineering process and workflow to better
prioritize the deliverables submittal. This prioritization supports the sequencing and delivery timing for
construction. In essence, AWP provides a structure for packaging and sequencing the Engineering Work
Packages (EWPs) to ensure timely delivery and alignment with the construction schedule. Important
aspects to setting up the Engineering stage for success include the following:
• Automatically produce a list of engineering and vendor deliverables and documents by CWP. Check
preliminary IWPs against these lists to make sure they have the correct materials in the correct
sequence – related to EWP.

• Create checklists with a responsible party assigned for each action item.
• Organize the 3D model by CWAs and CWPs.
• Formalize EWP progressing and forecasting procedure. EWPs should not be pinpointed. Make
sure that they correspond to CWP and the PoC and commissioning sequence. In addition, establish
checks on how data are transmitted around the project, because interdependencies are even more
critical in AWP. Link with the sequence of engineering and check the logic link with the rest of AWP.
• EWPs are mapped to turnover system priorities:
– Discipline kickoff meeting – the engineering sequence aligns with the PoC (conflicts may arise
between disciplines and information-sharing mechanisms need to be established)
– Constructability review:
» The PoC prioritizes and structures a constructability review plan.
» Design, review, and refine modularization execution. This is part of the review and validation
process because decisions on modular strategy and preliminary design are made during
Stage I.
» Review and refine heavy haul or lift and setting: construction sequence, procurement
strategy
» Underground – foundation and aboveground strategy
» Critical mass density work area
Figure B-5 presents a flowchart with implementation steps from the EPC start. (Stage II: Detailed
Engineering marks the beginning of EPC.) The steps outlined here are a continuation of Figure B-2.
Assign CWP
coding structure
to engineering
deliverables No
Produce Validate AWP Publish detailed
detailed coding in AWP Yes engineering
engineering engineering checks deliverables with
deliverables deliverables ? BOMs by CWP
Interate and
incorporate CWP
priorities into
engineering plans
Start of End of
Stage II Identify EWP Log engineering Update and Stage II
delivery dates constraints across publish EWP
at risk disciplines delivery plan
Input from
Procurement
Figure B-5. Flowchart of Engineering Processes during Stage II

To achieve the steps in Figure B-5, the engineering team needs to make decisions to formalize the AWP
process and organize the deliverables:
• Ensure the project adopts standard versions of templates for engineering lists:
– Piping line list(s)
– Equipment data sheets and equipment list(s)
– Instrument list(s)
– Cable schedule electrical list(s)
– Structural list(s)
– Foundations pad index or list
• Formalize the types of deliverables that will be produced per CWP type:
– Piping (e.g., piping specifications, pipe line list, pipe isometrics, support details)
– Structural
– Civil foundations
– Electrical
– Equipment
– Instruments
• Assign CWP to engineering deliverables – essential to incorporate to the 3D model, but teams can
employ different options based on their AWP maturity and level of automation:
1. Engineers assign CWP attributes in the 3D model and other engineering “lists.”
2. Engineers assign CWP attributes by using volume boxes in the 3D model.
3. Automate CWP attributes by “scripting” them into engineering design tools.
3.2. Roles, Organization, and Resources

The engineering manager has the accountability for Stage II processes to follow the path of engineering
and coordinate the EWPs’ priorities with the PoC and project schedule. However, for successful
implementation, Engineering has to coordinate with Procurement and Construction. For instance, in
Engineering, the engineers are responsible for the packages they produce and the construction team
needs to know how to implement them correctly. Figure B-6 on the next page presents a RASCI matrix
that defines which roles are responsible, accountable, provide support, are consulted, or should inform
the process steps outlined earlier in Figures B-2 and B-5.

Le a d
Le a d
er
a
Le a d
Le a d
si gn
ana g
e
e ad
r
si gn
i gn L
e
ag er
ana g
Le a d
C De
i gn L
ls M
si gn
si gn
l De
D es
M an
er
ent M
ag er
ana g
ontro
/HVA
e
c t ur a
e
si gn
s
nt D
nt D
t ion
l De
r in g
r
M an
ur e m
g De
ec t M
dul e
ec t C
in g s
/S t r u
st r u c
pme
um e
t r ic a
ine e
Sc he
AWP
B ui l d
Pi p i n
Pr o c
Equi
I n st r
Elec
Ci v i l
C on
Pr o j
Pr o j
Eng
Description
Document target engineering deliverables per CWP I C A R R R R R R C C I I
Identify input dependencies for engineering deliverables I C A R R R R R R I I I I
Identify input “need” dates and status to meet EWP dates I C A R R R R R R I I I C
Develop EWP delivery plan to document path of engineering I C A R R R R R R C C I I
Publish EWP delivery plan C C A,R I I I I I I C C C I
Establish AWP data fields on engineering deliverables C A R R R R R R
Establish model organization and coding structures for AWP C A C C C R C C C
Produce Stage I deliverables for Engineering I I A R R R R R R I I
Review and validate AWP coding structure and data fields set-up R A I I I I I I I I
AWP checks? – coding in engineering deliverables I R A C C C C C C
Publish Stage I deliverables with BOM and estimates by CWP I A R R R R R R I I
Track status of EWP deliverables by CWP and constraints
(during FEED)
I I A R R R R R R I I I I
Assign CWP coding structure to engineering deliverables IR A R R R R R R
Produce detailed engineering deliverables R A R R R R R R
Validate AWP coding in engineering deliverables R A I I I I I
AWP checks? – coding in engineering deliverables I R A C C C C C C I I I I
Publish detailed engineering deliverables with BOMs by CWP I A R R R R R R I I I I
Interate and incorporate CWP priorities into engineering plans I I A R R R R R R I I I I
Identify EWP delivery dates at risk I A R R R R R R C C I C
Log engineering constraints across disciplines C C A,R I I I I I I C C C I
Update and publish EWP delivery plan C I A,R I I I I I I I I I I
Legend
R – Responsible Individual Responsible for completing the task or activity
A – Accountable Individual who oversees the task or activity and is answerable to Account for performance of
the work
S – Support Persons in a Support role to assist the person responsible for the task or activity
C – Consulted Persons to be Consulted for advice and input, particularly regarding decisions affecting
execution of the task or activity
I – Informed Persons to be Informed and updated regarding the status and outcome of the task or activity
Figure B-6. RASCI Matrix for Aligning Engineering with AWP Processes


During Stage II: Detailed Engineering, the digital model is the central point for integrating AWP-related
data and attributes. In addition to traditional model attributes, each model element needs a tag to trace
to WBS, CWP, EWP, and IWP. Figure B-7 presents an example of the engineering model attributes for
a pipe.
Pipe System Attributes Pipe Part Level Attributes

ISO Number Operating Pressure Min Name/Tag (e.g., /QV-1100620;/TRUNNION/3P10-1265)
Line Number Operating Pressure Max CWA (e.g., 01)
Area/Unit Design Pressure CWP
CWA Operating Temperature Min ISO Number (e.g., /3P10A/80-DMW-110-00013-
CWP Operating Temperature Max 013470Z-N-01)
Module Design Temperature Line Number
Bore Size 1 Test Pressure Bore Size 1
Bore Size 2 Test Type Bore Size 2
Bore Size 3 Insulation Type Bore Size 3
Schedule Insulation Thickness Sched 1
Fluid Code Painting Spec Sched 2
From Heat Tracing Sched 3
To Notes Pressure Rating 1
PID Pressure Rating 2
Specification Pressure Rating 3
Phase Specification (e.g., /013470Z/PP3-0000LL_1)
Commodity Code (e.g., /013470Z/VLAJ4-
F1L270000LL_1)
Description (e.g., Globe Flg, BS 1873, RF, 150 Lbs,
Bolted Bonnet, Trim No.: 12, Acc. to API 600, 602, -,
Swivel Plug Disc, Stem: O.S./..)
Material (e.g., ASTM A351 Gr. CF8M)
Figure B-7. Engineering Model Attributes
An engineering model that is compliant with AWP enables field planners to select all equipment, concrete,
steel, and pipe by CWP and by phase to build Installation Work Packages (IWPs). Each project may have
different requirements and components. The examples provided below would apply to most industrial
project needs; therefore, it is recommended to include them in the model:
• Lines, labeled by CWP/Phase-line number

• Isos, labeled by CWP/Phase-line number-sheet
• Spools, labeled by CWP/Phase-line number-sheet
• Field welds visible
• Steel structures, tagged by CWP/Phase-STL
• Steel members, tagged by CWP/Phase-STL-piece number
• Foundations, tagged by CWP/Phase-FDN number
• Mechanical equipment, tagged by CWP/Phase-tag

The following other practices can also support successful AWP implementation:
• Export all deliverables to construction from the 3D model or project database – In this
way, all changes live in one place (the model), and there are fewer changes in the field and better
collaboration with workface planners.
• Digital updates to vendor equipment design documents and data are categorized by EWP –
This practice facilitates the workflow in Stage II and EWP prioritization per the PoC and project
schedule.
• Vendor data requirements are included in the contract language – According to 41% of the
surveyed SMEs, the need for input or information from suppliers is moved earlier in an AWP
project (see Figure B-4 on p. B-8). The engineers can design with preliminary data and finalize as
information becomes available; however, they need to consider vendor data requirements and the
required dates.
• The tagging structure is compliant with project needs – Each project and engineering team can
employ different approaches for tagging by AWP work packages; however, each approach needs to
take into consideration all of the elements presented in Figure B-8.
Where? Why?
Area Breakdown Plant System
Structure What? Breakdown
(CWA) Structure
B120 Tag Class PU-41-A20
Compressor
TAG: K-001
Belongs to a Tag Class: Compressor Tags
Belongs to a CWA: B120 K-001... When?
Belongs to CWP, IWP
Belongs to a System: PU-41-A20
Schedule
Designed by Discipline: Rotating Equipment Who? 10/15/2023
Installation Plan Date: 10/15/2023 Functional
Breakdown
Structure
Rotating Equip.
Figure B-8. Elements Included in the Tagging and Coding Structures

Chapter 4
Culture
AWP implementation requires a culture change geared toward collaboration during the design and
detailed engineering. Changes in functions and roles include the following:
• Reallocation of resources – AWP places emphasis on early planning to minimize changes in

the field. As a result, engineering hours may be moved earlier in the project timeline and decrease
during construction execution (fewer RFIs, changes in the field).
• Engineering efficiency and rules of credit – The sequence of engineering deliverables and the
EWP release plan follow the PoC and schedule priorities. Rules of credit are commonly used on
construction projects to monitor progress for the installation of components and are tied to progress
payments for milestone completion. Among the surveyed SMEs, 42% of observed changes in the
rules of credit to progress by EWPs (see Figure B-3 on p. B-6):
– The progress in engineering design is often measured by the earned value (EV) process, a
standard tool that enables professionals to plan and control cost and schedule in an integrated
manner.
– Traditionally, designers’ value is assessed by the number of deliverables they produce.
However, considering the changes in deliverable priorities, sequencing, and the additional AWP
attributes, the rules of credit need to be updated to reflect completion based on work packages
and not the number of deliverables (which may be out of sequence).
– Note: changes to the rules of credit and contract structure often relate to the highest level of
maturity with AWP projects; the SMEs who observed this change were all in the “Advanced
Intermediate” or “Expert” categories.
• Engineering integration with construction – AWP enhances the culture of collaboration between
engineering and construction. Early alignment is established during Stage I, when the PoC is
developed with input from engineering and construction. During Stage II, engineering disciplines
collaborate to develop a model and release deliverables in a way that facilitates the development
of IWPs from workface planners. If successful, the integration can result in fewer changes and no
delays, avoiding rework and RFIs during construction.
4.1. KPIs
Establish the right metrics for tracking engineering and procurement progress early on to confirm the
completeness of AWP attributes for construction and startup. These metrics can differ based on maturity
and enterprise requirements. In addition, associated timing can be added to the items identified below.

For instance, during the Construction phase, the construction planner should receive all attributes from
the engineers early enough and according to CSU priorities. The following items can act as a checklist
during Stage II to ensure the team has set up the appropriate metrics:
• 3D model attributes have tags associated with EWP and systems ID for startup.
• A master tag register collects attributes including system attributes, discipline attributes, and CWPs
containing all related tags.
• Vendor data attributes for parent-to-child tags – do we have a complete set of package components
• Track completed IWP – monitor start, finish, performance, and punch plan vs. actual.
• Readiness of SWP and turnover package (plan vs. actual)
• EWP/CWP constraint reporting during the Design phase
• PWP constraint reporting during the Execution phase
• Equipment and bulks constraints by IWP during the Execution phase
• IWP status during the Execution phase vs. progress reporting against baseline
4.2. Integration with Existing Business Processes

This handbook offers guidance related to Stage II: Detailed Engineering as defined in previous CII
publications (CII/COAA 2013). However, terminology often varies in the construction industry, depending
on both the sector and organizational context. For instance, the oil & gas sector often uses “select-
define-execute” to characterize project stages. Figure B-9 presents an overview of how the different
terminologies for project stages align; for instance, Stage II is the start of the Execute and EPC stages.

Opportunity
Framing
Pre-FEED FEED
Figure B-9. Reconciling the Terminologies Used to Describe the Phases of a Construction Project

Figure B-10 on the next page presents the key milestones on the AWP timeline, summarizing the guidance
provided throughout this handbook. The integration across stages and existing business processes is
essential to be communicated across project stakeholders since it determines the continuity of data and
information, particularly if the work in different stages is performed by different parties. This summary of
AWP steps can act as a guide for successful implementation.
project.


Stage Gate Review Stage Gate Review

Construction Commissioning Startup
Preliminary
construction
AWP coding
IWP review

sequence identified
Legend
Figure B-10. AWP Timeline Capturing Project Milestones, IAP Sessions, Engineering Steps, and Review Gates
B-17
Handbook C: Construction Execution,
Testing, and Completions
Final Report 390

Chapter 1
Introduction

Work Packages (SWPs). During the Construction stage, the work packaging and constraint management
aim to remove the guesswork from executing at the workface by tightly defining the scope of all work
involved and ensuring that all necessary resources for execution are in place (CII/COAA 2013).
RT-365 assigned the following steps to Stage III: Construction Execution, Testing, and Completions
(CII 2020c):
• IWP-based controls
• Test packages
• IWP-SWP transition management
The benefits of successful AWP implementation have been far-reaching, yielding performance
improvements in productivity, cost, safety, schedule, quality, and predictability. RT-319 showed that
productivity could improve by as much as 25% with consistent AWP implementation (CII 2015). The basis
for successful AWP implementation occurs during the earlier stages by aligning engineering, procurement,
and construction. AWP relies on the execution of constraint-free IWPs, which allow frontline personnel to
focus on construction and not waste time retrieving materials, engineering, or documentation.

Handbook C provides actionable guidance to achieve AWP benefits during Stage III: Construction
Execution, Testing, and Completions. The rest of this handbook is divided into two sections:
• Chapter 2: Scope includes a flowchart that presents actions for IWP-based execution, and this
section lists the key inputs and outputs for Stage III. For instance, early constraint identification for
IWPs is an input to construction, while an IWP tracking database is an output.
• Chapter 3: AWP Leading Practices outlines successful implementation through the various
categories of information:
– Process and implementation steps – Culture
– Roles and resources – Key performance indicators (KPIs)
– Data, tools, and technology – Integration with existing practices
AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations C-2

Chapter 2
Scope
Figure C-1 summarizes the execution steps for successful IWP execution and closeout. The workface
planning (WFP) process and WFP lead are the key components.
CWP
release
Contractor
onboarding to
company AWP IWP scoping
Start of and
Stage III sequencing
System Constraint
Work Packages identification
System defined and removal
by P&IDs – project
schedule aligned
Three-week
IWP planning
Turnover System
Documentation Work Packages and lookahead Driving
IWP
System Work Work scope close-out IWPs to SWPs
Packages prioritized by transition
(SWPs) defined SWPs management
End of
Stage III
SWPs
execution and
punch-out
Figure C-1. Action Flowchart for Stage III: Construction Execution, Testing, and Completions
WorkFace Planning
As defined by RT-272, workface planning (WFP) is the process of organizing all of the elements
necessary for an installation work package (IWP) and delivering them before work has started. This
proactive process enables craft workers to perform their work safely, effectively, and efficiently. WFP is
accomplished by breaking down construction work (by trade) into discrete IWPs that completely describe
or cover the scope of work for a given project. This process promotes the efficient use of available
resources and permits the tracking of progress (CII/COAA 2013).
RT-319 found that the efficient configuration of IWPs enhances productivity, since focusing on specific
areas can prevent inefficient relocation and movement around the site. IWPs follow the principle of
“one crew, one shift” to maximize workforce utilization in any given area for a single discipline within a
manageable amount of time (typically one week) (CII 2015).

WorkFace Planning Lead

The 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, the 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
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
workface planner should have sufficient understanding of construction to prepare discipline-specific
IWPs with the required support from other departments and approval from construction management.
The resources required for the workface planning process may vary based on the project size. For
example, in a large project it is common to have multiple workface planning leads responsible for different
scopes of work, reporting to a workface planning manager. In addition, the AWP manager or coordinator
plays a key role in driving early CWP readiness and releasing activities while the project transitions from
early planning and design to construction.
During this stage, constraint-free IWPs are the central component to success. As discussed in
Handbooks A and B, the basis for successful implementation is established early in the project. As was
seen in Figure C-1 on the previous page, the construction team leverages inputs from previous phases
and executes work with a rigorous constraint management and progress control regime for the IWPs.
The lighter squares present actions relevant to IWPs and constraint removal, while the darker squares
along the left side present the integration with SWPs. Prioritizing work by Commissioning and Startup
(CSU) sequence and aligning the schedule, as well as planning for the area to systems transition, are
important components to the Construction phase and the subsequent CSU stage.
In addition to efficient IWP planning and configuration, the constraint management process is critical to
timely closeout. The constraints attached to each IWP relate to the materials and resources necessary to
execute it. The engineering, procurement, and construction teams must collaborate to ensure need dates
are communicated and met, and establish a tracking system so all project stakeholders understand how
information, materials, and equipment flow through the project. All constraints have to be identified and
resolved prior to the IWP start date (see Figure C-2 on the next page).

CWA
EWP/CWP
IWP Constraint-free IWP

Information Flow
Constraint-free
Scope Progress
Status
Materials On Site
Management
Documents
Constraint
IFC
Resources Allocated
Others Assigned
Figure C-2. Establish a Data Flow to Ensure Constraint-free IWPs
While the goal is having finalized CWPs and issuing constraint-free IWPs to the field, there are some
considerations regarding flexibility. Becoming too conservative or rigid with IWP sequence can get in the
way of actually doing things and not allow anything to move forward. For example, workface planners
should work with key construction stakeholders and schedulers to create alternative plans if a material
delivery is delayed. The goal is to be open and thoughtful, aiming to optimize work with the materials on
hand while staying ahead of the problem. As a result, IWP release plan is not “one and done” and should
be updated iteratively.


Subject matter experts identified the key inputs to Subject matter experts identified the key outputs
Stage III. of Stage III.
• CWPs • Visual and data-driven reports to support

CWP readiness reviews
• List of early constraint identification
• EWP deliverables status reports
• Detailed EPC phase project execution plan
• Materials feasibility and exception reporting
• AWP implementation plan with budgetary
by CWP
estimate and allocation for support
• Fabrication status visualization
• AWP master index (e.g., CWPs, EWPs,
PWPS, planned contract releases) • All of the drawings per Installation Work
Package (IWP) – what is in the package and
• Plot plans with marked-up CWAs/CWPs and
what not, with all drawings accounted for
critical equipment layouts
• Constraint-free IWPs
• Site materials management plan
• IWP tracking database for development,
• Path of construction visualization
constraint management, installation, and
• Level 3 schedule with construction activities close-out
by CWP and milestone deliverables for
• Workfront buffer report, IWP skyline reports
EWPs, PWPs as well as the turnover and
commissioning SOW • Material issue requests by IWPs
• Training, commissioning, and startup plans • Materials staged by IWP
with commissioning systems list mapped to
• Progressing IWP work steps
related CWPs
• IWP close-out report
• Updated strategic business assessment
• System Work Packages (SWPs)
The project team will also need inputs common
• RFIs coded to CWPs, IWPs, systems
for construction planning, such as:
• Reasons for delay trending and
• Final cost estimate troubleshooting report
• Completed environment permit submittal • AWP metrics and leading indicators reports
• P&IDs issued for construction (IFC) • AWP risks, issues and decisions log to
• Equipment list IFC, POs, and vendor support continual improvement at a project
drawings level
• Single-line electrical diagrams IFC • AWP lessons learned database
• Latest issue of drawings

Chapter 3

With the start of construction, CWPs should go through a formal readiness and release process. After
this has been completed, CWPs are assumed to be final and the focus can shift to IWPs development
and constraint management. Similar constraint management should be addressed at the CWP level. In
some cases, CWP boundaries may be “soft” until issues have been resolved.
Once CWPs have been finalized, categorize the Process and Implementation steps during construction
into workface planning, execution control, and lessons learned:
• The workface planning team issues IWPs with no constraints to the field (success rule).
• The execution control captures progress by IWPs, with the goal of underway vs. completed (moving
away from the percentage completed) and aligns schedule.
• Lessons learned relate to capturing key barriers and successes to mature the AWP program.
RT-390 identified the following action items and considerations that can help execution teams implement
AWP successfully:
• Involve the construction team early in the project lifecycle to aid in creating the optimal Path of
Construction (PoC). Team members from engineering, procurement, construction, and operations
will participate and contribute to the development and documentation of the PoC.
• Early identification of constraints for IWPs is a deliverable during construction planning. During
this phase, constraint management is a process and the output is the normal field project controls
requirements. Note of caution: be proactive and not reactive to the plan during the constraint and
change management process.
• Project controls works with other team members to identify constraints at the CWP and IWP levels
and to align schedule priorities.
• Each project team needs to establish clear guidelines during request for proposals (RFP)
independent of contracting strategy (PoC-driven, not contract-driven).
• At the end of the FEED phase (Stage I), the CWP release needs to be established with a 120-
day window before construction execution. This window is largely driven by construction needs,
including procurement, and may vary by CWP. There is room for changing the window size with
project size and scope, with larger projects requiring a bigger window.
• RFIs must refer to specific CWP and IWP.

• Crews request materials by IWP and materials are issued and staged to the crews by IWP.
• Well-established workface planning program
• Mobilization (operations representative) of EPC and owner representatives should already have
been assigned and begun working (by the end of Stage I/FEL3).
• Sequence is key from an execution standpoint. CSU sequence is an input to aligning IWPs.
• IWP is the minimum common denominator between area- and system-based execution.
• Develop a scaffolding and shared resource plan. Scaffolding and cranage often pose constraints on
IWPs and take time to resolve.
The interface between the WFP and project control teams is critical to AWP success. Alignment with
AWP deliverables is primarily supported by the AWP data requirements and coding structure, which are
based on the project’s WBS (not its cost breakdown structure). At the same time, the IWP sequencing
and release depends upon the project schedule. While the preliminary schedule is set at interactive
sessions (IAP), updated versions need to align with IWP release plans, constraint management, and
30-day lookaheads. (Note: the timing of lookahead schedules may vary based on project conditions,
available resources, and constraints.) Figure C-3 captures the principal steps in the project controls
process for AWP projects.
Code Schedule by CWP Use initial scope

and rough order
Scheduling software will have of magnitude to
CWA & CWP coding at the establish the size
appropriate activity level of the project
Conceptual schedule Kickoff → first interactive
takes shape based on planning (IAP) session →
high-level project preliminary master
characteristics production schedule Finalize and issue
project schedule
Contractor Enablement Project team contributes

to the development of
Develop and deliver Level 3+ the project schedule: Develop project schedule Execute work by IWP,
construction schedules over time through
• Defined work areas based on the
IAP sessions three-week lookahead
• Duration
Define–Refine–Baseline generated by WFP
• Sequence
• Resource loading
Interactive Planning • Earned value method
Interactive planning sessions Project execution plan Project controls scheduler
define, refine, and finalize • Procurement plan monitors construction
the plan, upon which the • Contracting plan progress and flags
project schedule is based → CWAs → CWPs issues for realignment
Figure C-3. Project Controls Process


The project team is responsible for the success of AWP. As such, it needs to have experienced workface
planners and craft leaders, and to establish alignment between the engineering, procurement, and
construction teams. RT-390 additionally identified the following considerations:
• Embed the right CSU resources (e.g., construction and work planning SMEs) with the engineering
and procurement teams to ensure that the information and materials are developed in accordance
with CSU priorities.
• The AWP champion (also known as coordinator or lead) must establish protocol and meeting
schedule for AWP execution with the project team.
• The AWP coordinator requires commitment from the project level and sponsorship to work.
• Enterprise-level AWP requires the AWP-related roles to work efficiently. Please refer to the
Enterprise Guide (p. EG-1) for more information on the principal aspects of enterprise efforts,
including training and benefits.
The owner and EPC contractor are the main roles influencing AWP:
• The owner’s role is critical to AWP, both in terms of support and executive decisions.
• The EPC contractor (or multiple contractors depending on the contracting strategy) also has
a critical role in terms of expertise, resources, planning, and alignment. However, multiple
subcontractors and fabricators are also involved in the project, particularly during Stage III:
Construction Execution, Testing, and Completions.
Figure C-4 summarizes the steps that various parties have to execute to ensure the unconstrained and
on-time execution of work.
1. Preliminary plant
layout/design
and CWAs
7. Align construction with engineering and

procurement:
2. Lead Path of 5. Lead CWP 6. Support onboarding • Guide and advise that IWPs follow schedule 8. Proactively
Construction workshop readiness reviews and orientation of ensure that IWPs
• Support removal of constraints
sessions to scope prior to planned construction labor are closed out in
and sequence contract releases contractors • Manage trade-offs across stakeholders a timely fashion
CWAs and CWPs • Escalate constraints in engineering and
resulting work plan availability
4. Define, refine, and

3. Outputs finalize CWPs as visual 9. Review and approve final 10. Ensure that
to Path of sequence and scope alignment to construction WorkFace Planner(s) 11. Execute
Construction reports to provide input to schedule as construction develop and release the work
develop Level 3 Schedule labor contractors publish constraint-free IWP
their site execution plans
Figure C-4. Project Team Alignment and Implementation Steps to Execute the Work during Stage III

The steps shown in Figure C-4 involve a variety of parties:
Step 1: Typically, this is a joint effort between the owner and contractor. The preliminary, high-level
planning (e.g., plant layout) is performed by the owner, but planning later becomes a joint effort and
requires an expert EPC contractor.
Steps 2–3: The PoC workshops require expert representation across all disciplines and final say
lies with the contractor. This process may depend on contracting strategy, project type, and AWP
maturity (see Handbook A). Representation on PoC reviews is particularly important because
changes at this stage could affect the schedule. The schedule risk is significant for the contractor
and changes are critical, particularly for projects where different contractors are responsible for
engineering and construction.
Steps 4–5: These are the last steps to be performed prior to the start of construction. Responsibility
for them lies with the EPC contractor.
Steps 6 and 9: Construction involves multiple subcontractors. Review and approval for schedule
(logic, sequence, resources) is a joint effort with the owner, but often disputes arise. The owner has
no control over some decisions (like resources), but typically has strong opinions on the sequence.
On the other hand, the owner has particularly strong input on operations. The EPC contractor
is ultimately responsible to perform the work, and so makes the final decisions; however, some
project-specific constraints may exist, depending on how the contract is written. On the critical-
path Level 3 schedule, the owner has final input, because it may affect scheduled completion.
Constraints (e.g., resources) are mostly the contractor’s responsibility.
Steps 7, 8, and 10: These steps are primary the responsibility of the workface planning team.
Alignment with engineering and procurement is essential for constraint identification and
management.
The workface planner has an important role and should exhibit the following traits:
• A similar skillset to the general foremen

• Works very closely with (almost “married to”) the superintendent.
• Workface planners and the WFP team report directly to the construction manager (CM) and
indirectly to the AWP manager.
• For staffing the project, a rule of thumb is one workface planner for 50 craft personnel, but the
number may change based on the site and project conditions. For example, in a large LNG project
with 5,000 people on-site, the ratio of workface planners to craft personnel was one to 70.

The AWP Return on Investment (ROI) tool developed by CII’s AWP Community for Business Advancement
(AWP CBA) can help identify the appropriate number of workface planners employed on a project.
Figure C-5 presents an example of a screen view from this tool (AWP CBA 2021).
ADVANCED
WORK PACKAGING
Community for
Business Advancement
WORKFACE PLANNERS
Number of Planners Needed

Description Unit of Measure Unit Rate Total
TIC $ 10,000,000
Direct Labor $ 4,000,000
Direct Labor Hours @ $ per hour $ 100.00 40000
Construction Duration months 6
Hours per month 6667
Average Number of Craft hours per week per person 50 33
Planner Can Support number of craft labor per planner 65
Number Of Planners Needed 0.5
Number Of Planners Needed Rounded up to the closest whole number 1
How Many
Category / Maturity 1 – Early Implementation 2 – Regular Implementation 3 – Company Standard Practice
A – Traditional (No AWP) 0 0 0
B – WorkFace Planning 30 40 50
C – AWP 50 65 80
D – Full AWP 80 100 120
Data Fields
Description Default Value User Defined Value
Average (all in) cost per hour for craft labor $ 100.00
Craft (working) hours per week per person 50
Number of craft labor per planner See table above
Monthly cost of a workface planner $ 20,0000.00
Notes:
The number of planners required is calculated from the number of craft personnel each planner can support.
This will vary based on AWP implementation category and the maturity of the
The data fields section above shows the default values used in the calculation.
User can define their own values for one or more of these data fields.
Figure C-5. Example of How to Use the AWP ROI Tool to Staff a Project with WorkFace Planners
(AWP CBA 2021)


The following technologies can have an impact on how successful AWP implementation relates to
visualization, scheduling, and progress tracking:
• A dashboarding tool set up to provide visibility on IWP plan and status

• Visualizations of IWPs, CWPs, preferably in 4D, 3D
• Tracking unconstrained backlog as well as main constraints to be cleared
• Scheduling software (e.g., Oracle Primavera P6) with the ability to incorporate work package at the
CWA/CWP level (milestone schedule) and with granularity as the planning processes progress to
IWP level (by commodity and by discipline). Test packages will be included at a Level 5 schedule.
Systems completion will follow the SWP schedule and be reported at a granular level of detail.
As discussed in Handbook A, the data architecture established for the project will be critical during the
Construction phase, when information from different disciplines needs to be timely and accurate. An
underlying implication of the data architecture is that inspection and test plans (ITPs), IWPs, CWPs, and
SWPs have different data needs and representations. The data architecture structure needs to capture
the different data and provide connections or mapping to the associated document structure. In addition,
the data architecture should be mapped to the AWP coding (established during preliminary planning and
implemented during the Engineering phase). The project team needs to know: Which equipment is under
which tag within an IWP, tag structure, and document-to-tag relationship?
The AWP data requirements (coding structure) and architecture established for the project act as the
common language to align disciplines and remove constraints. The tools and technologies utilized in the
project act as enablers to streamline communication and execution. As a result, without the appropriate
basis, no technologies and tools can ensure AWP success.
3.4. Culture

During execution, the culture shift relates to the way foremen and craft leadership perform the work.
Having a clear mapping of IWPs, look ahead schedules, and materials management changes the “hunter-
gatherer” mentality and highlights the need for efficient leadership within these roles. AWP promotes
efficient planning in the field, so all materials and equipment are ready for the crews to perform the work
by IWP. This kind of predictability in the field can yield significant benefits, including improved safety and
productivity. SMEs from RT-390 reported that they often made changes in leadership roles in the field to
align expertise with understanding of the AWP process.
3.5. KPIs
On an AWP project, basing progress measurement on rules of credit enables tracking at the work
package level and improves visibility of the associated scope of work status according to PoC priorities.
Different KPIs can be tracked at various stages of implementation; however, the team needs to plan for
progress tracking and put the proper tools in place. Which KPIs to track is established during Stage I
(see Handbook A). During construction, KPIs center on IWP progress, constraint removal, and schedule
alignment. For example, some KPIs include the following:
• During the Construction phase, the construction planner receives all attributes from the engineers
early enough and according to CSU priorities.
• Tracking completed IWP (monitoring start, finish, performance, and punch plan vs. actual)
• Readiness of SWP and turnover documentation (plan vs. actual)
• Equipment and bulks constraint by IWP during the Execution phase
• IWP status during Execution phase vs. progress reporting against baseline
• The contracting type can affect the KPIs tracked during system completion:
– Rules of credit can still be used and map towards their systems
– Rules of credits lack visibility at earlier stages, need adjustments to AWP framework (e.g., by CWP)
– Need visibility – e.g., IWP constraints by week
– Not how you got there, but visibility on progress toward achieving what they said they would do
– Real-time completion – progress based on what is on the ground

Integration with existing business processes

The guidance outlined in this handbook relates to Stage III: Construction Execution, Testing, and
Completions; however, terminology often varies in the construction industry, depending on both the sector
and the organizational context. For instance, the oil & gas sector often uses “select-define-execute” to
characterize project stages. More commonly, industry experts use the EPC terms to characterize phases
that include engineering, procurement, and construction. Figure C-6 (below) captures how the various
terminologies used in the industry overlap, while Figure C-7 (on the next page) summarizes the key
steps that need to be implemented in an AWP project. This summary can act as a guide for successful
implementation.

Opportunity
Framing
Pre-FEED FEED
Figure C-6. Reconciling the Terminologies Used to Describe the Phases of a Construction Project
The AWP timeline presents steps to achieve successful AWP implementation. The parties responsible
for each action will be determined by the project owner and contracting strategy. For instance, stage gate
reviews may signify an invitation to bid (ITB) to involve contractors in Stage I. Alternatively, an owner may
employ expertise (internally or outsource) and involve contractors at the final investment decision (Stages
II through IV). However, these steps have to take place along with provisions for continuity of information
and data transfer to ensure seamless integration for a successful project. The interfaces between
engineering, procurement, and construction are particularly important. If a contractor is responsible for
construction, but not engineering and procurement, the owner needs to outline information handover
requirements and ensure seamless integration to reap the benefits of AWP on site, such as improved
safety, productivity, and predictability.


Preliminary
construction
AWP coding
IWP review

sequence identified
Legend
Figure C-7. AWP Timeline Capturing Project Milestones, IAP Sessions, Engineering Steps, and Review Gates
C-15
Final Report 390

Chapter 1
Introduction

AWP is a delivery framework that extends throughout the project lifecycle, from project scoping and
early planning to turnover delivery. AWP promotes a disciplined approach to organizing and delivering
the project by using defined work packages at each project stage, such as Engineering Work Packages
(EWPs), Procurement Work Packages (PWPs), Construction Work Packages (CWPs), Installation Work
Packages (IWP), and System Work Packages (SWPs). The basis for successful AWP implementation
occurs during the Preliminary Planning and Design stage (see guidance in Handbook A); however, it is
also critical to include Stage IV: Commissioning and Startup, from early planning through implementation
to equip AWP teams for success by “beginning with the end in mind.”
Previous CII studies (e.g., Research Teams 121, 312, and 333) recognized the importance of
commissioning and startup (CSU) and explored it in a variety of ways. More specifically to AWP, RT-364
provided guidance to align the CSU stage with the AWP framework, formally defining System Work
Packages (SWPs) as the key link between CSU and AWP (CII 2020a):
• An SWP is a deliverable that enables a commissioning work crew to perform work in a safe,
predictable, measurable, and efficient manner.
• An SWP should be scoped to be manageable and “progressable,” and it is typically scoped in a way
that maps to existing commissioning zones, systems, subsystems, or subsystem components.
• An SWP should also be mapped to predecessor IWPs in order to ensure that the Path of
Construction (PoC) enables an efficient startup sequence.
• Predecessor IWP completions are constraints to be monitored and mitigated prior to SWP issuance.
An SWP should contain the necessary documentation supporting workface execution.
• SWPs should be approved by the responsible stakeholders and any constraints should be mitigated
before any package is issued to the field.
• An SWP is not the same as a turnover package, which typically is a collection of key documentation
that facilitates the turnover of an asset from construction to commissioning. For the sake of clarity,
RT-364 referred to such documentation as “turnover documentation” instead of “turnover package.”
• SWPs include elements such as included equipment and systems, required tests, required
documentation (to start and to finish), procedures, responsibilities, constraints to monitor, and which
information and engineering documents are needed to execute work.
AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations D-2


Handbook D provides actionable guidance and presents a path to integrate commissioning and startup
(CSU) with the AWP delivery framework. The term “CSU” refers to Stage IV: Commissioning and Startup,
which includes SWP-based controls and turnover to startup (CII/COAA 2013). The rest of this handbook
is divided into two sections:
• Chapter 2: Scope presents a flowchart with steps for the SWP development and execution. It also
presents the key inputs and outputs for Stage IV.
– Culture

Chapter 2
Scope
Handbooks A through C outlined the sequence of steps that needs to be considered for the CSU phase:
• Incorporating CSU sequence in prioritizing CWPs, IWPs, and SWPs
• Identifying predecessor relationships between IWPs and SWPs
• Implementing AWP data requirements (coding structure) to seamlessly transition from area to
system completion
Figure D-1 illustrates the steps to take to integrate the SWP application with AWP as identified by RT-364,
plus the optimal timing for each step (1-5). The basis for success in Stage IV is set during previous stages
and efforts in this stage center on managing SWP constraints (step 5) and executing SWP efforts (step 6).
First IAP Session 1. Incorporate

(Stage I) and apply SWP
Third IAP Session

2. Define SWP
(Stage I)
boundaries and
work scope
Track from
Stages I to IV 3. Understand
SWP constraints
Stage I – Establish
coding structure
4. Document SWP
Stage II – Implement data attributes
coding structure
Stages III 5. Manage

and IV SWP constraints
Stage IV 6. Execute
SWP efforts
Figure D-1. Steps for SWP Application Integrated within AWP (Developed by RT-364)
Showing the Optimal Timing for Each Step (CII 2020a)

According to SMEs, Stage IV has these key inputs: SMEs say Stage IV has these key outputs:
• SWPs • Data and a digital model for the
• System boundaries – predecessor IWPs Operations & Maintenance team
• RFIs coded to CWPs, IWPs, SWPs • Turnover to client (system-based)
• Turnover documentation
• Punchlist items categorized and reported by SWP
• Constraint identification for SWPs

Chapter 3

A project is not complete until it produces a product, passes performance testing, or sustains production;
the means of achieving these ends must be considered early in the project. RT-364 found that, for
AWP implementation, “Beginning with the end in mind” (shown in Figure D-2) encourages teams to
incorporate considerations of commissioning strategy, sequence, priorities, and constraints in the Path
of Construction (PoC), and these considerations influence the alignment of work packages with schedule
priorities (CII 2020a).
Begin with the End in Mind
Procurement Path of
CWA for Construction EWP IWP
Process Commissioning
Path of CSU Test Packages and Startup
Path of Construction
AWP PLANNING Commissioning

ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION and Startup
PROCUREMENT and Fabrication Test and Turnover
Figure D-2. Begin with the End in Mind: Commissioning and Startup (CII 2020a)
It is important to identify the CSU sequence in the PoC during Stage I. System completion needs are
delineated with the development and sequence of CWPs and IWPs. As a result, CSU experts are required
to provide early input and align area with system transition (e.g., identify that the steam generation
area is needed first, utilities area second, pipe racks next, and so on). The CSU sequence is highly
dependent on owner’s requirements, project characteristics (e.g., greenfield, brownfield, revamp), and
process technology (e.g., olefins, polymers, licensed). The sequence will drive work packages, schedule
(backward pass), constraints, and the area-to-system transition (see Figure D-3 on the next page). Early
in the project, the engineering team designs by system, but later it transitions to area-based design.
Later, construction execution is area-based and it transitions to system-based during startup.

Figure D-3 presents the “transition curve” from system- to area-based execution. The top part of the
figure presents the relationships between work packages and project phases, and the relationship
between backcasting from SWPs to achieve early planning (“beginning with the end in mind”) and tracking
execution progress as the phases progress to capture schedule updates. The bottom part of the graph
captures the use of tags as an ongoing process throughout the project timeline (building and maintaining
a tag master), and as the core for linking area- to system-based transitions.
Project Months
executing executing
EWP planning
CWP planning
SWP
System- Engineering Construction Startup O&M

based Turnover
Process
Commissioning
Equipment
Loop Test
Instrument
Electrical Equipment Pressure Test
Layout Installation
Piping Piping
Underground
Area- Civil
based Foundation, Structure
Hand over
Build Tag Master Maintain Tag Master Information
Figure D-3. Area-to-System Transitions in the Project Lifecycle
The interface between engineering and construction is critical for AWP, because the last things that
are typically designed are the first to be executed. Particularly the piping and welding volumes greatly
influence the project duration and the civil tags that are created last are the first to be used. The interface
of construction and startup also presents a critical transition from area-based execution (through IWPs)
to system-based execution (through SWPs).

Success during the CSU phase relies in two components: efficient planning and efficient execution.
• Planning: CSU sequence drives development of work packages and schedule – Efficient
planning starts with involving commissioning experts in the PoC workshop to provide input on the
CSU sequence. The early system and sequence identification (i.e., what to turn over and when)
drives the schedule and CWP finish dates through a backward pass.
As seen on Figure D-4, the typical durations for CSU activities are used to develop the initial
schedule per system, and the boundaries between systems and areas (CWAs) are mapped to
ensure the handover of related information (turnover documentation). The commissioning team
scopes systems through smart P&IDs. The team refines the work packages between the first and
third IAP sessions (see Figure D-10 on p. D-16), and typically develops preliminary SWPs at the
third IAP session.
Typical Activity Durations Backward Pass Schedule

and Sequence
1
Construction Precomm. CSU 2
3
x y
4
End of Systems Commissioning, CWAs Group Handover Sequence

Startup Sequence
System 1
1
System 2
2 2 3 2
System 3
3 1
System 2
4
Figure D-4. Early System Completion Integration with AWP Framework
• Execution: SWPs alignment with IWPs and constraint management – SWP execution relies on
the completion of predecessor IWPs; therefore, to streamline the process, the team must identify
predecessor IWPs for each SWP and align the completion dates within the schedule. The team also
has to generate turnover documentation for each system and map it against the deliverables related

to CWPs, IWPs, and SWPs. Figure D-5 depicts the alignment and relationships between CWPs,
IWPs, and SWPs. Figure D-6 shows how this process starts when the work packages are defined
during Stage I, and continues as they are gradually refined and tracked as the work is executed.
Construction Work Area (CWA) Commissioning Zones
System 1
SWP 3
Construction Work
Subsystem 1A
Package (CWP)
SWP 2
SWP 1
Installation Work Check and SWPs (System Work Packages)
1. Post-Energization/Commissioning Activities
Packages (IWPs) Test Sheets
2. Startup Activities
Data: Constraints and Attributes
Figure D-5. SWPs Alignment with Work Packages (CWPs, IWPs) (CII 2020a)
Unit 1 A System can potentially be an

[Turnover Package] entire Area or one or more Units
System 1.1 System 1.2 System 1.3 System 1.4
Subsystem Subsystem Subsystem

1.2.1 1.3.1 1.4.1
Subsystem Check & Test Subsystem

1.2.2 Sheets 1.3.1.1 1.4.2
Check & Test Subsystem

Sheets 1.3.1.2 1.4.3
SWPs
(For a System or a Subsystem) Ex: 1) Pipe cleaning, 2) Lube oil flush,
3) Gross leak test, …
Figure D-6. SWPs Alignment with Turnover Documentation (Area- to System-based Transition)
(CII 2020a)

In order to ensure timely execution, the workface planning team needs to work with the CSU team to:
• Identify and include inspection hold points in IWPs.

• Identify and track links between IWPs (area-based) and SWPs (system-based) and manage
constraints concurrently. (Table D-1 presents constraint categories for IWPs and SWPs.)
• Link IWP to systems and subsystems through tags for targeted status control and to demonstrate
granularly which IWPs have issues and are thus holding up a subsystem.
Table D-1. Constraint Management Categories for IWPs and SWPs (CII 2020a)
Constraint Categories IWP SWP

1. Resources – people (directive and indirective) X X
2. Sequence predecessors (IWPs, SWPs) X X
3. Materials/CSU spares X X
4. Equipment and tools X X
5. Access/scaffolding X X
6. SIMOPS X X
7. Work permit X X
8. Work area/asset condition/preservation X X
9. Installation, operation, and maintenance manuals X X
10. Checksheets X X
11. Ambient/atmospheric conditions X
12. Regulatory requirements (e.g., FERC, DOT, EPA) X
13. Power/utilities/feed stocks X
14. Vendor and supplier support/involvement in CSU X
15. Test package in hand (test, procedure, results) X
16. Field redlines/as-builts X
17. Turnover documentation X

RT-364 identified five key roles related to AWP/CSU activities (seen in Table D-2 on the next page):
• Construction manager • Turnover manager

• Commissioning manager • Project manager
• System completion planner

Table D-2. Example Responsibility Assignment for CSU Activities in AWP Projects (CII 2020a)
CSU Roles for AWP
System Completion
Turnover Manager
Project Manager
Manager (CM-1)
AWP Stage
Manager (Cx-1)
Commissioning
Planner (Cx-2)
Construction
AWP/CSU Swimlane Activity
(PM-1)
(Cx-3)
#U1. Appoint AWP lead for CSU R
#U2. Develop CSU and turnover strategy, constraints, and objectives R R R

I: Preliminary Planning and Design
#U3. Develop commissioning system scope/definition and CSU sequence R
#U4. Provide commissioning sequence input into integrated planning sessions R
#U5. Provide commissioning sequence input into Level 2 schedule review R
#U6. Appoint support for AWP/CSU information management R
#U7. Review and revise path of commissioning R
#U8. Define system and subsystem boundaries R
#U9. Develop staffing plan for AWP/CSU R
#U10. Prepare CSU execution plan R
#U11. Provide CSU input into engineering design R

Engineering
II: Detailed
#U12. Update CSU systemization and sequence R
#U13. Accept and initiate turnover strategy R

III: Construction Execution,
#U14. Develop SWPs R R

Testing, and Completions
#U15. Identify IWP-SWP associations R R
#U16. Analyze SWP constraints for release R
#U17. Clear constraints prior to issue of SWPs R
#U18. Issue SWPs to the field R
#U19. For subsystems, issue certificate for commissioning and power-on requests; R
change jurisdictional control
#U20. Execute work in alignment with SWPs R R

IV: Energization and
Commissioning
#U21. Report SWP progress to project controls R
#U22. Track subsystem completion by SWP and assemble turnover documentation R
#U23. Walk each system and develop a CSU punch list R
#U24. Track CSU punch list closure R
#U25. Ready for startup R

A main challenge identified by RT-390 is that the commissioning team is mobilized at the Planning stage
to provide input, and then again at the end of the Execution stage. This timing can make it difficult to
maintain the same people throughout the project. According to a subject matter expert (SME), this time
between the engagement of CSU experts at the PoC workshop and CSU execution may be as large as
six years. In fact, it is important to have commissioning expertise in the Planning stage, even if these
experts are only engaged short-term to ensure that the right CSU sequence is captured based on the
project’s needs.
During the CSU stage, the owner plays an important role in driving success and ensuring the quality of
operations. As a result, the contract language (between the owner and EPC contractor) is particularly
important during this stage to clearly define responsibilities while allowing the contractor to execute
according to their work processes. The following sample contract language comes from an owner:
• CONTRACTOR / COMPANY is responsible for defining, developing and executing

Pre-COMMISSIONING Work Packages with support of COMPANY/CONTRACTOR.
Pre-COMMISSIONING Work Packages describe the requirements, activities, and
deliverables for Pre-COMMISSIONING.
• CONTRACTOR / COMPANY is responsible for defining, developing, and executing

COMMISSIONING Work Packages with support of COMPANY / CONTRACTOR.
COMMISSIONING Work Packages describe the requirements, activities, and
deliverables for COMMISSIONING.
• The detailed division between CONTRACTOR and COMPANY’s responsibility for

Pre-COMMISSIONING and COMMISSIONING is detailed under Section – SCOPE
DESCRIPTION.


Success in Stage IV is established early during the preliminary planning design (Stage I). A critical aspect
to success during Stage IV is established early on: the link between work packages (e.g., CWPs, IWPs,
SWPs) and the area-to-system transition. This link can be established with tags that remain consistent
throughout the project lifecycle and functions (as shown in Figure D-7). Different companies may employ
different ways to structure these links (e.g., labels, coding structure) (see Handbook A for an example of
a coding structure).
System
Area (CWA)
T1T2'
Aligning Tags
Figure D-7. Aligning Area and System by Assigning and Tracking Tags (System and CWA)
Digital tools and technologies can provide benefits by automating the development and tracking of SWPs.
Experts with RT-390 provided the following examples of the ways these tools and technologies can be
utilized to support successful implementation during Stage IV:
• Use the automation tool to develop digital SWPs.

• Load systems into the virtual construction model (see Figure D-8 on the next page) so they can be
visualized.
• Have the project leverage a database tool to manage a digital SWP execution plan.
• Set up the project to leverage a database tool for SWP constraint management.
• Establish work steps in the turnover documentation for the collection of field asset data to support
the digital twin.
• Automate the assembly of vendor documents into digital SWPs.
• Assign codes (e.g., tags, labels) when the systems are being developed and associate the label with
the SWP. That way, constraints show up on the model automatically.

Commissioning Zone
SWPs
SWP 1 – Pump #1
SWP 2 – Pump #2
SWP 3 – Pump #3
SWP 4 – Instrumentation
SWP 5 – Firewater System
SWP 6 – Lighting System
SWP 7 – Gas Detector
SWP 8 – CCTV
• Oily Water Sewer • Fire Detectors
• Cathodic Protection • Pedestal Grouting
• Electrical Tracing • Earthing/Grounding
COMMISSIONING • Insulation • Instrument Air Hdr
CONTROLLED
AREA
RESTRICTED AREA
DO NOT ENTER THIS AREA WITHOUT
COMMISSIONING PERMIT TO WORK
AND ACCESS BADGE
Figure D-8. 3D Visualization of Commissioning Zone with Multiple SWPs (CII 2020a)
The data need to follow handover expectations (e.g., operation data, proprietary information). Figure D-8
presents a portion of a plant, zoomed out to illustrate how the commissioning scope of work will get
executed in the field. This is defined as a “commissioning zone,” and it encompasses all systems that
are in the “energized zone.” During Commissioning, this entire zone is closed off and the lock-out/tag-out
process is initiated. All access to the zone is controlled to ensure no entry during testing.
In addition, the data associated with the AWP framework need to align and be integrated with the
capital facilities information handover specification (CFIHOS) requirements to maintain data integrity
and deliverables. CFIHOS defines its data models containing core entities (e.g., tags, equipment, and
properties used for Operations & Maintenance), which should be shared and integrated with the AWP
data requirement framework. Establishing common data requirements and data structures between
CFIHOS and AWP will benefit owner/operators, EPC contractors, equipment vendors, and IT solution
providers by helping them avoid unnecessary data mapping and double work. This requirement will
further enhance the smooth transition and data transfer through EPC, Commissioning, Startup, and
Operations & Maintenance.

3.4. Culture
AWP relies on early planning and the “beginning with the end in mind” practice. As a result, the culture
change that comes with employing AWP highlights the importance of the CSU stage. With practices
such as onboarding the CSU team early for input into PoC workshop to defining SWPs and handover
documentation, AWP can lead to more efficient handover and operation. Furthermore, AWP relies on a
robust data structure and supports collaboration; therefore, it can act as a basis to streamline the data
required for operation according to CFIHOS. In fact, a typical plant may require the startup of more than
40 systems to start operations; however, even after startup is complete, the systems will not run without
the required data for operations and maintenance. Successful implementers leverage the AWP process
to improve the CSU stage and drive the data handover required for operations.

3.5. KPIs
On an AWP project, progress measurement based on rules of credit enables tracking at the work package
level and improves visibility of the associated scope of work status according to PoC priorities. Different
KPIs can be tracked at different stages of implementation. During the CSU stage, the following KPIs can
be tracked:
• Readiness of SWP – have all predecessor IWPs been completed?

• Turnover documentation (plan vs. actual)
• Number of completed tags for the area-to-system transition
• Constraints per SWP

The guidance outlined in this handbook relates to the final stage of the project, Stage IV: Commissioning
and Startup. The steps outlined here build on the guidance provided in the preceding handbooks that
covered the earlier stages. Figure D-9 summarizes how to align the different terminologies for project
stages used in the industry.

Opportunity
Framing
Pre-FEED FEED
Figure D-9. Reconciling the Terminologies Used to Describe the Phases of a Construction Project
Figure D-10 on the next page summarizes the milestones that should occur during each stage. This
summary of AWP steps can act as a guide for successful implementation. Please refer to Table 3 in FR-364
for detailed descriptions of the “Ready for Commissioning” and “Ready for Startup” milestones (CII 2020a).


Preliminary
construction
AWP coding
IWP review

sequence identified
Legend
Figure D-10. AWP Timeline Capturing Project Milestones, IAP Sessions, Engineering Steps, and Review Gates
D-16
The AWP timeline presents steps to achieve successful AWP implementation. The parties responsible
for each action will be determined by the project owner and contracting strategy. For instance, stage gate
reviews may signify an invitation to bid (ITB) to involve contractors in Stage I. Alternatively, an owner may
employ expertise (internally or outsource) and involve contractors at the final investment decision (Stages
II through IV). However, these steps have to take place along with provisions for continuity of information
and data transfer to ensure seamless integration for a successful project. The output of Stage IV is an
operational asset. During this stage, the owner’s role is critical is ensuring the quality and handover of
operational data to manage the asset throughout its lifecycle.

Final Report 390

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations E-1
Chapter 1
Introduction

Work Packages (SWPs).
The basis for successful AWP implementation is set during Stage I: Preliminary Planning and Design
(see guidance in Handbook A); however, successful implementation in the field requires coordination
among project teams and particularly the interfaces of engineering, procurement, and construction.
To that end, RT-310 examined alignment practices and behaviors and provided guidance to improve
engineering and procurement alignment in coordination with construction (CII 2016). Furthermore,
RT-365 identified barriers and potential solutions related to procurement in AWP projects (CII 2020c) and
RT-363 investigated the alignment of supply chain and AWP in greater depth and defined the concept of
PWPs (CII 2021).
RT-390 built on this existing work as it developed this handbook to provide guidance on the procurement
and supply chain process. The following definitions will be used throughout Handbook E:
• Supply Chain Process (SCPr) – AWP execution requires the capability to manage sourcing,
logistics, delivery and receiving, and materials storage before installation – and managing them all
at a level of detail that supports mapping information and materials to EWPs, CWPs, IWPs, and
SWPs. SCPr capabilities must include the ability to source and track information deliverables as well
as materials that support the planned execution sequence. Systems must enable the components of
purchase orders (POs) to be matched with multiple EWPs, CWPs, IWPs, and SWPs.
• Procurement – The contracting for goods and services must meet the needs of the project
(before and after POs). Procurement capabilities must also support work package-level constraint
management and materials allocation.
• Procurement Work Package (PWP) – The PWP is an optional construct that some firms and
projects may use as a mechanism to support the AWP execution program and the SCPr. AWP
execution does not require a PWP. If deployed, a PWP must support the capabilities described for
the SCPr. For consistency with AWP definitions of work packages, a CWP may contain one or more
PWPs, and PWP boundaries align with CWP boundaries. The set of PWPs that belong to a CWP
describes all materials and related procurements that belong to that CWP. Procurements related
solely to startup activities may be mapped against SWPs rather than CWPs.

Procurement is the essential tie between conceptual engineering, detailed design, and construction. It is
imperative that procurement be aligned with the various stakeholders during all phases of the project to
allow for proper delivery of all equipment, materials, and subcontracts required for successful completion.
Properly aligning procurement with the other stakeholders requires the following actions:
• A clear understanding of schedule

• Cost and contractual requirements
• Commitment to quality
• Timely delivery of work product
• Professionalism
• Transparency
• Organized processes

Handbook E seeks to provide actionable guidance and present a clear path to integrate procurement with
the AWP delivery framework. The rest of this handbook is divided into two sections:
• Chapter 2: Scope presents a flowchart that outlines necessary actions for the procurement team.
This chapter also includes key inputs and outputs for procurement.
– Culture

Chapter 2
Scope
The procurement and supply chain process stage is unique in that it operates in parallel with Stages I
through III (from early planning to execution). During these phases, the teams collaborate with engineering
and construction to make sure they achieve the goal of releasing constraint-free IWPs according to
schedule priorities. As such, the teams have to track multiple schedule points to ensure timely delivery:
• The long lead items need to be identified and go through a cyclical process with the engineering
team: first the material requisition and then specific vendor data to be used in EWPs.
• Similarly, engineering will share the BoM of bulk materials and equipment.
• After purchasing, the procurement teams will share back the vendor data with engineering.
• The timeline will be dictated by CWP priorities aiming to have all engineering deliverables issued
for construction (IFC) and long lead items ready for shipment prior to the start date of the CWP that
each corresponds to.
Project teams can choose to structure a physical Procurement Work Package (PWP) to facilitate alignment
with construction. The PWPs are optional; however, an alignment process needs to be in place with an
internal system if PWPs are not used. Figure E-1 presents the types and sources of information that are
typically included in a PWP or internal supply chain process system for an AWP project.
PWP/Supply Chain Process
MTO/MR PO Status/Location Priorities/FMR
Materials
Engineering Procurement Construction
Management
• Bulk takeoffs • Buying • Receiving • Procuring

• Installation and • Expediting • Storage (by contractor)
systems • Inspection • Preservation • Managing
requirements • Installing
• Delivery • Tracking
• EWP information • CWP and IWP
• Tracking • Issuing
information and
priorities
Figure E-1. Information Transfer from the Disciplines into the

PWP or Internal Supply Chain Process System


Subject matter experts identified the key inputs to Subject matter experts identified the key outputs of
Stage IV: Stage IV:
• PoC • PWPs
• List of major and long lead equipment (early • Materials management system
development)
• Constraints management plan
• Preliminary equipment arrangement plot plan
• Component-level tracking integrated across
• Project schedule with required on site (ROS) EWP, CWP, and IWP implemented (status and
dates holds) – important to relieve constraints via
tracking
• Bill of materials
• Fabrication work packages corresponding to
• Material responsibility matrix
CWPs defined and sequenced in support of
• Path of procurement, procurement PoC – AWP fundamental
sequence – needs to align with PoC, comes
• Tracking of vendor design progress and
to the table early
deliverables mapped to EWPs
• Long lead equipment
• Equipment progress and shipment tracked by
• Remote instrument units (might be CWA, CWP, and IWP
critical path)
• AWP planning phase deliverable –
• Heavy single set items procurement sequence for major equipment
• Lift plans (particularly for modular unconstraint by on-site need date by CWP
construction) and early IWP sequence to construction
management
• Systems and sequencing
• Execution phase deliverable (dependent on
• Utilities (last thing anyone wants to work, bulks procurement plan by contracting plan
first thing that is needed) and assignment) – engineered and piecemeal
• Procurement strategy vs. sourcing strategy bulks by disciplines by IWP sequence (link to
CWP) unconstraint by IWP completion date
• List of approved vendors
from construction management to installation
contractor(s)

Chapter 3

The procurement and supply chain process is a critical element to AWP implementation success and
links to the engineering, construction, and materials management functions and teams. The PoC and
CWP/IWP priorities will dictate required on site (ROS) dates. As a result, the procurement and supply
chain process requires a backward pass of actions to achieve delivery by the ROS dates, eliminating the
constraints for execution.
The normal project deliverables in the early development of major/long lead equipment list within
a preliminary equipment arrangement plot plan mark the starting point for the procurement planning
process. AWP enhancement to the early project planning of CWA, PoC, CWP, and PWP development
prior to the engineering kick-off is a collaborative, iterative process that involves relevant SMEs, including
the procurement function. The procurement and supply chain process requires the integration of multiple
systems for planning, management, and tracking during execution. Figure E-2 presents the systems that
need to be integrated and mapped in the procurement structure.
Engineering
MTO/
Requisitions
Third-party Purchasing Freight

Fabricator and Materials Forwarder
Delivery Tracking Management Subcontractor
System System Tracking System Typically link exists
and works well
Link may not exist

or does not work well
Alternative path to be
Field established if primary
Field Purchase
Constructor Warehouse link is not there
Items – Materials
WFP System Management
Tracking Report
System Various groups within the
contractor organization
and its subs use separate
systems and software
IWPs Report or information
Figure E-2. Integrated Systems in the Procurement and Supply Chain Process

Engineering’s materials takeoff and requisitions supply essential information for the procurement
team’s purchasing and materials management system, the central system for managing information.
However, because multiple parties are part of this process, the following systems need to be integrated
(automatically or with external links):
• Freight forwarder subcontractor system – This system stores all information related to size,
transportation, and delivery dates, and thus is where these details are updated.
• Third-party fabricator delivery tracking system – The information in this system should also
reside within the purchasing and materials management system; however, this information transfer
link is often not well established, which can result in inconsistencies, particularly on delivery dates.
• Constructor WFP system – The WFP team uses this system to manage and remove constraints as it
structures the IWPs. As a result, the information link is critical to ensure that WFP planners only issue
IWPs without constraints to the field. Typically, the purchasing and materials management system and
the constructor WFP system will have automated links to ensure efficient constraint removal.
• Field warehouse management system – Typically, this system is primarily linked to the freight
forwarder subcontractor system and tracks actual delivery dates and freight information. The field
warehouse management system should transfer actual information to the central purchasing and
materials management system to ensure consistency throughout the project.
The ultimate goal is to release constraint-free IWPs for execution.
RT-390 identified that the following procurement and supply chain process practices contribute to
successful AWP implementation:
• Visualize the status of material readiness on site by CWP and IWP.
• Track fabrication status from supplier by CWP and IWP.
• Secure the IFC releases and submittal approvals by CWP to maintain CWP priorities.
• Track bulk materials (e.g., nuts and bolts) by CWP.
• Define fabrication work packages to correspond to CWPs and sequence them to support the PoC.
• Track vendor design progress and deliverables by mapping them to EWPs.
• Track equipment progress and shipments by CWA, CWP, and IWP.
• Implement the constraints management plan during the materials management system. This is very
important. Do not start work until all materials have been received.
• Deliver materials to the site per IWP.
• Time ahead varies for supply chain considerations and the risk profiles of each project, but can
range from six weeks to three months.
• Integrate component-level tracking across EWP, CWP, and IWP as they are implemented (e.g.,
status and holds). It is important to relieve constraints by tracking.
• Maintain alignment between the master schedule and the procurement schedule. These should
be kept in sync on a daily or weekly basis to ensure the data are in sync across all applications,
schedule, constraint management, and so forth.


In an AWP project, the owner and EPC contractor need to align in procurement decisions. Particularly
for owner-purchased materials and equipment, information needs to transition to the contractor and align
with its purchasing and materials management system.
Another important consideration is the lead times of long lead items. The project manager (PM) or
procurement manager may dictate what the lead time is on long lead items. In AWP, the schedule and
vendor information may indicate what the long lead items are. For example, transformers have a long
lead time and become critical by nature. In AWP, if this item belongs on the first area to start up, a
transformer may become more critical than other pieces.
The procurement and supply chain process interacts with most players outside the project team. In an
AWP project, the procurement team on the contractor side will typically be the same size as one on a
non-AWP project. On the vendor side, however, the procurement team often grows for an AWP project
because of AWP’s requirements for materials and sequencing. For example, in a non-AWP project, a
piping spool fabricator typically will optimize its process to manufacture efficiently (easy comes early,
complex comes last). However, in an AWP project, the fabricator needs to deliver per CWP sequence, so
it has to change the way it performs the work. This change to accommodate CWP sequence and schedule
priorities usually requires more people. In essence, AWP project teams “re-shuffle” how procurement
works (like engineering) to make construction more efficient.
Similar to the staff for other functions, the procurement team will typically undergo AWP training
(voluntary or mandatory); however, unique to procurement teams is the legal training that will also be
offered to account for the different configuration of POs. Some considerations include pricing, domestic
vs. international vendors, transportation, delivery types, and batches delivered on different dates under
one PO. (Please refer to the Enterprise Guide (p. EG-1) for more information on AWP training.)

As was shown in Figure E-2 and the discussion of interacting systems, the procurement and supply chain
process relies on a central system and its integration with third-party systems for information handoff and
materials tracking. Table E-1 on the next page presents an example of how an AWP-mature organization
tracked information by PO. For each PO, line items were split to support visibility into the different EWPs
and IWPs they supported. The numbering was also structured in a way that made it easy to track against
work packages and required-on-site dates.
Other organizations employ two different systems:

• The one for purchasing only contains line items, dates, and vendor information.
• Another for AWP data requirements contains line items and the EWP, CWP, or IWP that each
corresponds to.


Table E-1. Example of Information Tracked by PO
Sub Forecast Actual Receiving

PO Item Item Item Commitment Shipping Arrival Inspection Warehouse Released to
# # # Description Qty EWP Date Date ETA Date Date Location IWP Construction
5001 5001.01 01 2" CS 3 EWP- 1-Apr- 1-May- 1-Jul- 15-Jun- 15-Jun- LD- IWP- 1-Jul-
Manual 100-P-01 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 Z01-R3 100-P- 2023
Ball Valve 01-01
5001.01 02 2" CS 5 EWP- 1-Apr- 1-May- 1-Jul- 15-Jun- 15-Jun- LD- IWP- 7-Jul-
Manual 100-P-01 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 Z01-R3 100-P- 2023
Ball Valve 01-01
5001.01 03 2" CS 10 EWP- 1-Apr- 1-May- 1-Oct-
Manual 100-P-02 2023 2023 2023
Ball Valve
E-9
Each project team will adjust its materials management system to include AWP data requirements and
the priorities or need dates for the work packages. Ideally, the system integrates with third-party systems
across the project (refer back to Figure E-2 on p. E-6 for a diagram of integrated systems) and allows for
component-level tracking across platforms.
3.4. Culture
For procurement and supply chain processes, the culture changes relate to the timing of supply chain
process inputs and the alignment with IWP schedule requirements according to the structure that AWP
provides. First, expertise from the procurement and supply chain team is required during the PoC
workshop to align the procurement process with construction priorities. Early supply engagement can
support the input process and ensure timely delivery.
It is worth noting that RT-363 identified a mismatch between the typical and desired (resulting in most
value to the project) timing of supplier engagement and recommended earlier supplier involvement that
what has been typically done. In addition, the alignment of procurement and supply chain process with
IWP schedule requirements provides a more granular visibility into the required on site dates. This change
relates to both process and culture, since it requires more robust control and often more complex POs.
For example, one supplier may be required to deliver part of a PO earlier than the others, which may in
return change its process and required staffing (CII 2021).

3.5. KPIs
Early on, establish the right metrics for tracking engineering and procurement progress to confirm the
completeness of AWP attributes for construction and startup. These metrics can differ based on maturity
and enterprise requirements, but the following items can act as a checklist ensure the procurement team
has set up appropriate metrics:
• A master tag register with the attributes including system attributes, discipline attributes, and CWPs
containing all related tags
• Vendor data attributes – parent-to-child tags. Do we have complete set of package components
• PWP constraint reporting during the Execution phase
• Equipment and bulks constraint by IWP during the Execution phase
The success of the procurement and supply chain process is evaluated by the results in subsequent
phases. Internally, the procurement and supply chain team may assess KPIs related to suppliers (e.g.,
lower price and faster delivery); however, these metrics need to align with KPIs for the overall project’s
success. As a result, KPIs often need to be adjusted. For example, the procurement team needs to
consider the PoC priorities and capacity of laydown area and replace faster with just-in-time delivery.
Further, the procurement team needs to have a clear understanding of schedule definition. For example,
at the early stages of the project where the schedule may be unclear in some areas, the procurement team
may not be able to make the decision to accept an extra month for delivery to secure a cheaper price.
These tradeoffs between internal and overall success metrics make procurement decisions challenging.
However, the visibility and earlier guidance on construction priorities that the AWP structure allows can
help procurement teams make decisions and engage suppliers.

The guidance outlined in this handbook relates to procurement and supply chain process. In contrast
to other stages, the procurement process runs parallel to the AWP project timeline. Figure E-3 on the
next page presents the key milestones on the AWP timeline, summarizing the guidance provided in this
handbook. This overview can act as a guide for successful implementation.


Preliminary
construction
AWP coding
IWP review

sequence identified
Legend
Figure E-3. AWP Timeline Capturing Project Milestones, IAP Sessions, Engineering Steps, and Review Gates
E-12
As the timeline shows, the procurement strategy is identified during the first IAP session with input from
all key stakeholders. Long lead items are identified during the first PoC workshop and the materials
requisition report is delivered close to the end of FEL2. After that, the procurement and supply chain
process teams begin purchasing and tracking based on the guidance and information handover discussed
in this handbook. The integration across stages and existing business processes is essential to be
communicated across project stakeholders, since it determines the continuity of data and information,
particularly if the work in different stages is performed by different parties.
project.

Enterprise Guide
Final Report 390

Enterprise Guide
Chapter 1
Introduction
AWP Fundamentals
Work Packages (SWPs).
The first step to embracing the AWP framework and integrating it with the existing business processes
is understanding the commitment and efforts required. While many implementations begin on the project
level, these can be enhanced with the enterprise-wide approach detailed in this Enterprise Guide.
Because AWP is an improvement to traditional project management practices, the AWP timeline (shown
in Figure EG-1 on the next page) can act as a guide to underline the efforts that need to take place for
successful AWP implementation and to highlight the need for support throughout the project lifecycle.
This summary of AWP steps can act as a guide for successful implementation.
AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations EG-2


Preliminary
construction
Enterprise Guide
AWP coding
IWP review

sequence identified
Legend
Figure EG-1. AWP Timeline Capturing Project Milestones, IAP Sessions, Engineering Steps, and Review Gates
EG-3
Enterprise Guide
How Is the Enterprise Guide Organized?

The guidance provided in Handbooks A through E detailed the steps to implementing AWP successfully
by discipline at the project level. Beyond this project-level approach, enterprise-wide adoption is critical to
consistently reap AWP’s full benefits in safety, productivity, predictability, cost, schedule, and/or quality.
As an SME told RT-390:
“We have adopted AWP as the way we do business. AWP is the first thing to consistently move the
needle on our productivity metrics in years and we are seeing benefits after moving to enterprise
adoption.”
This Enterprise Guide aims to provide guidance to organizations that are building or expanding their
enterprise-level program for AWP execution. The enterprise program can act as a foundation for
transferring expertise and lessons learned as well as equipping project teams for success:
1. This guide discusses the expected benefits from AWP implementation as a motivation for moving
to enterprise adoption.
2. This guide provides guidance for AWP enterprise readiness on four key points of emphasis:
– Understanding the barriers to AWP implementation
– The training needed for AWP knowledge transfer from program to project
– The information management established to support AWP
– The scalability of AWP to support different project needs
Figure EG-2 shows how these four categories serve as foundational blocks to build an AWP program
and support enterprise readiness. The upward arrows in Figure EG-2 show the knowledge transfer from
program to project to ensure consistent implementation and maximal project outcomes as AWP is used
across a portfolio of projects.
FEP A EPC A [4 years]
FEP B EPC B [3 years]
FEP C EPC C [5 years]
Enterprise-level AWP Readiness

Understand Training and Information AWP Project-level
barriers expertise management scalability execution
Figure EG-2. Strengthening Enterprise-level AWP Readiness by Providing Guidance

on AWP Barriers and Training, Information Management, and AWP Scalability

Enterprise Guide
Chapter 2
Motivation and AWP’s Expected Benefits
Moving to enterprise-wide adoption requires time and organizational buy-in. Typically, early implementers
will pilot projects that uses workface planning (WFP) before they move to full AWP implementation.
RT-272 developed an AWP maturity model, which it detailed in Volume II of IR272-2 (CII/COAA 2013). A
company or project can use this AWP maturity model to assess its current state of AWP implementation.
The benefits of AWP implementation differ depending on

the organization’s maturity level, with increasing benefits
Performance Breakout
corresponding to increasing maturity. According to RT-319,
Productivity
successful AWP implementation can yield 25% productivity
benefits and 10% cost savings on projects compared to
traditional levels for mature organizations (those at Level 3: Quality Cost
AWP Business Transformation). (See Figure EG-3.)
An organization can gain the full benefits of AWP only

when it fully integrates AWP with its business strategy.
Implementing AWP successfully requires following a Predictability Safety
disciplined, program-wide approach. Performance benefits Stage I

Stage II
from AWP implementation motivate early adopters to pilot Schedule Stage III
the AWP framework, and the more experienced to advance

their maturity. While earlier studies observed pronounced Figure EG-3. AWP Performance
Benefits for Different Levels of Maturity
benefits during the Execution phase (CII 2015a), RT-390
(CII 2015)
found the benefits of AWP during earlier stages had been
understudied.
To assess the observed benefits of AWP during early planning and execution at a granular level, RT-390
surveyed 22 subject matter experts (SMEs). After refining the survey and piloting it with a working group
of RT-390’s academic team and three SMEs who were industry members, the team widely distributed the
survey via the Qualtrics tool (qualtrics.com) and received 101 responses. The survey asked participants
to respond to the questions that aligned with their expertise, and 85% of respondents answered every
question. (In Figures EG-4 and EG-5 below, the number of respondents is shown as the value “n.”)
The survey respondents identified which types of organization they worked for by selecting among
several options: owners, contractors, engineers/designers, suppliers, and consultants. The survey
respondents had an average of 21 years of experience in the construction industry. They presented
significant experience with AWP since 80% represented higher maturity levels in both their personal
and their organizations’ AWP maturity. (The appendix presents more detailed information on the survey
participants’ demographics.)

Enterprise Guide
Benefits during Early Planning

As outlined in Handbook A, significant effort is required during early planning to achieve a successful
AWP implementation. At the same time, however, benefits can be gained even at early stages (e.g., pre-
FEED, FEED), including those identified by RT-390:
• Earlier guidance to engineering and procurement on need-by dates for design and information
deliverables
• Improved shared understanding of the scope
• Improved visibility into constraints during Path of Construction planning
• Improved clarity of priorities
• Alignment of procurement and engineering strategy with field/fabrication and startup strategy
• Clarity of information requirements and standards (plan for data quality)
• Improved incorporation of constructability into the design
Figure EG-4 shows the results of a question where participants rated the benefits they have observed
during early planning on AWP projects by selecting among four options: Not a benefit, Somewhat of a
benefit, Moderate benefit, and Significant benefit.
Improved incorporation of constructability into the design

Clarity of information requirements/standards
(plan for data quality)
Alignment of procurement and engineering strategy
with field/fabrication and startup strategy
Improved clarity of priorities
Improved visibility into constraints during
Path of Construction planning
Improved shared understanding of the scope
Earlier guidance to engineering and procurement on
need-by dates for design and information deliverables
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure EG-4. Respondents’ Observed Benefits during Early Planning
Improved visibility into constraints during Path of Construction planning was found to be the most
commonly observed benefit (64% of respondents), followed by Earlier guidance to engineering and
procurement on need-by dates for design and information deliverables (62%). These benefits underline
the collaborative nature of the AWP framework and the need to establish interfaces between disciplines
(e.g., engineering, procurement, and construction) for early input during the PoC and related constraints,
as well as aligning the deliverables sequence with construction priorities.

Enterprise Guide
Benefits during Execution

RT-319 examined benefits during execution in terms of performance (e.g., safety, productivity, cost,
schedule, and predictability); however, as their learnings from AWP grow, implementers can assess
benefits during execution at a more granular level. In turn, these benefits can lead to better project
outcomes in terms of performance (CII 2015). RT-390 identified that the following AWP benefits occur
during execution:
• More granular tracking of progress by work packages
• Improved change management
• Improved identification and resolution of RFIs before field execution
• Reduction in number of RFIs
• Reduction of punch lists in the field
• Fewer last-minute purchases and decreased expediting
• Improved transition from bulk construction to systems completion and testing
• Improved leverage of digital design models for procurement, construction, and startup
Again, the team asked survey participants to select among four options to rate the benefits on AWP
projects, but now considering the Execution phase (see Figure EG-5).
Improved leverage of digital design models

for procurement,construction, and startup
Improved transition from bulk construction to
systems completion and testing
Fewer last-minute purchases; decreased expediting
Reduction of punch lists in the field
Reduction in number of RFIs
Improved identification and resolution of RFIs

before field execution
Improved change management
More granular tracking of progress by work packages
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure EG-5. Respondents’ Observed Benefits during Execution
More granular tracking of progress by work packages was most commonly observed as a significant
benefit (60% of respondents). This finding aligns with previous benefits on predictability, since granular
progress tracking helps the project controls team understand priorities, respond to changes, and
manage subcontractor teams. At the same time, granular tracking enables the WFP team to release and
resequence IWPs to support the PoC while considering field progress and conditions.

Enterprise Guide
Portfolio Benefits
The survey results strengthened the visibility of potential benefits from successful AWP project
implementation. These granular benefits are observed by experienced industry practitioners and can
motivate early implementers to invest in AWP. At the same time, RT-390 experts whose organizations
adopted AWP as an enterprise-wide approach observed that the benefits expanded across their portfolio
of projects and can act as a motivation for accelerating maturity across the industry.
Many benefits come from the enterprise-wide adoption of AWP:
• Efficiencies from making it “the way of working”

• Less chance of falling back into the old or traditional ways of working
• The more rapid spread of lessons learned
• More consistent performance measures and easier comparisons across projects
• Improved predictability and repeatability across the portfolio
Moving rapidly to enterprise implementation can also leverage training investments. That being said,
because an enterprise may have a wide variety of project types and sizes, there could need to be some
adjustment of the AWP program expectations for different projects (considering their scale in particular).
Ideally, there will be few changes to specific AWP procedures across projects and as much adherence
to consistency as possible. One engineering organization interviewed by RT-390 has made AWP its way
of working on all projects, even if not asked by the client. In fact, exceptions require senior management
to sign off.
Preparing for AWP: “Crawl-Walk-Run”

The expected benefits from AWP implementation can motivate enterprise adoption; however, as with
all new methodologies, the enterprise-level AWP process may require some trial and error. Starting the
AWP journey follows the “crawl-walk-run” process illustrated in Figure EG-6.
Crawl Walk Run

AWP pilot onboards Expand implementation Adopt enterprise AWP as
knowledgeable AWP experts to multiple projects “the way we do business”
Figure EG-6. The “Crawl-Walk-Run” Approach to AWP Enterprise Adoption

Enterprise Guide
• The Crawl stage consists of full AWP implementation on a pilot project. It requires the involvement
of AWP knowledgeable experts as part of the project. For example, an early implementer
EPC organization can benefit from working with a more AWP-mature owner and following the
guidance presented earlier in this report in the AWP Review and Owner’s Guide, as well as all five
Handbooks. A project manager who is experienced with AWP can also add value by championing
implementation. In addition, AWP cannot be used as a remedy for projects and should not be
employed as an afterthought to projects that are already in flight. The results of the pilot project can
have a range of benefits related to the project stakeholders and other factors; however, consistent
benefits come from consistent implementation.
• The Walk stage consists of implementing AWP on more projects and adjusting the enterprise
adoption to fit the organization’s needs. For example, it is important to consider the scalability
of AWP processes for enterprise-wide implementation. As with many project management
approaches, smaller projects may combine roles in terms of staffing and certain procedures may be
scaled down. In many ways, AWP projects are no different from other projects: what is important is
that all projects ascribe to the basic principles of AWP, such as management by work packages and
effective planning and constraint management.
Smaller, routine projects may only use basic planning activities for integrated procurement and
deploy WFP. Larger projects may use full AWP for planning, design, construction, and startup. In
addition, the relationship between work packages and AWP coding structure emerges from each
organization’s expertise and internal preferences.
As Handbook A presented, the AWP methodology supports multiple work package relationships;
however, early implementers may use a one-to-one relationship for CWPs and EWPs to manage
the boundaries. With larger projects, it is common to move from one to many relationship for CWPs
and EWPs based on different engineering disciplines. Similarly, the coding structure acts as the
common language that connects all AWP packages and deliverables. The coding language is
typically tied to the project work breakdown structure (WBS); however, the coding embedded in
the documents and digital model can depend on the database used for managing, the number of
work packages, and internal preferences. Persistence and continuous lessons learned will lead to
improvements and a clear understanding of the AWP needs for each organization.
• The Run stage ties to Maturity Level 3 and aims to adopt AWP as “the way we do business.” By
this final stage, AWP is used for every project, scaling the efforts as appropriate. An enterprise-
level program is also established to provide formalized training, develop and maintain the AWP
guidance, and provide support to projects. At this stage, AWP performance metrics are tracked
in a centralized way to track the consistency of outcomes and address gaps for improvement.
Implementation Example 1 (on p. EG-16) provides an overview of the corporate KPIs that a mature
owner at the Run stage tracks across projects.

Enterprise Guide
Chapter 3
Enterprise Readiness and Knowledge Transfer
AWP readiness at the enterprise level is the knowledge foundation for implementers. It may include
a structured program and team (for mature implementers) or efforts to explore the AWP framework,
expertise, and information management required (for early implementers). Building the enterprise’s
readiness for AWP involves understanding and addressing the barriers to implementing AWP and
recognizing the information management and technology requirements that best manage an AWP
project. In addition, owner organizations can assess the scalability of AWP and adjust their process
based on their implementation and staffing needs.
In parallel to building enterprise readiness as a base, the organization delivers AWP projects and
advances its AWP maturity through lessons learned. On a project level, project teams can follow the
guidance provided earlier in Handbooks A through E. It is helpful to integrate existing processes with
the AWP timeline of summary milestones to showcase that AWP is not a separate process that happens
“on top” of the project, but rather it is integrated as an improvement to traditional project management
throughout the project lifecycle. As organizations structure their AWP program, they can use or adjust the
AWP timeline to better reflect the way they do business.
Finally, the essential link between enterprise- and project-level AWP implementation is knowledge transfer
and application expertise. This detail is critical to leveraging the full benefits of a structured program,
particularly for the construction industry, where each project has unique circumstances. Knowledge
transfer can be formalized by offering training and enterprise-level support to AWP projects as needed.
Implementation Example 2 (on p. EG-19) captures the learnings from a mature service provider and
complements an overview of the foundational blocks.
Understanding the Barriers

The first step to moving to enterprise adoption is understanding the barriers to successful AWP
implementation. AWP barriers are unavoidable, particularly during the early stages of implementation.
In order to succeed and move up the AWP learning curve, organizations need to recognize, track, and
address these barriers. Previous studies have identified extensive lists of barriers to AWP implementation
(CII/COAA 2013, CII 2015, CII 2020b). For example, RT-DCC-04 categorized the barriers to AWP maturity
and grouped them into the following categories (CII 2020b):
1. Barriers related to AWP maturity levels, resource availability, and AWP understanding
2. Barriers related to the integration of AWP with engineering
3. Barriers related to the company’s not being convinced of the AWP benefits or not being interested
in implementing AWP
4. Barriers related to alignment and integration between AWP and existing company processes or
systems

Enterprise Guide
Next, RT-DCC-04 observed that a company’s AWP implementation maturity level often aligned with
which barriers it was prepared to address (CII 2020b):
• High-maturity companies faced barriers more closely connected with integrating AWP with
engineering. This shows that the high-maturity companies have recognized the benefits of AWP and
are now focused on resolving issues connected with implementing AWP.
• Median-maturity companies presented a mix of barriers related to awareness and barriers related
to integration with engineering. These companies were still in the process of implementing AWP.
Only part of a company had an established awareness of AWP and understood the barriers. And,
because these companies had commenced implementing AWP, they also recognized some barriers
related to AWP procedures.
• Low-maturity companies were encountering more of the barriers that come from being
unconvinced of AWP’s benefits or from being uninterested in implementing AWP – an interesting
finding. If a company fails to recognize the value of implementing AWP, it will not invest the
resources necessary to implement it.
Table EG-1 on the next page combines RT-DCC-04’s findings into a summary chart.
Understanding the barriers for each project and organization will drive the speed and efficiency of
enterprise adoption. To overcome each barrier category, please refer to guidance in the segment of this
report that relates to its phase:
• For barriers related to AWP maturity level, resource availability, and AWP understanding:
– Refer to the AWP Review and Owner’s Guide to understand the AWP concepts, benefits, and
what AWP is and is not.
• For barriers related to the integration of AWP with engineering:

– Refer to Handbook B: Detailed Engineering to understand the process steps and the survey
results of the “changes in design.”
• For barriers related to an organization that is unconvinced of the benefits of AWP or disinterested in
implementing AWP:
– Refer to the “Motivation and AWP Expected Benefits” section of the Enterprise Guide to
understand the benefits of early planning and execution that industry has observed using AWP.
• For barriers related to alignment and integration between AWP and existing company processes
and systems:
– Refer to Handbooks A–E, each of which outlines the process and implementation steps for a
different stage of AWP and gives the AWP timeline that can support the integration with existing
business processes. Also refer to the Enterprise Guide to understand the different layers of
AWP enterprise readiness.

Enterprise Guide
Table EG-1. Top Barriers for Each Maturity Level (adapted from CII 2020b)
High Maturity Categories of Barriers

Barriers AWP maturity
level, resource
@ Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP ?
availability, and AWP
@ External push-back from engineering design contractor understanding
Integration of AWP
@ External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor @
with engineering
@ External push-back from engineering design/procurement/construction contractor Company
|| Lack of alignment between AWP implementation strategy and field execution unconvinced of
X AWP benefits or
Contractor does not buy in early enough not interested in
implementing AWP
@ Construction company not available to provide timely Path of Construction input
Alignment and
AWP program is not owner-driven integration of AWP
|| with existing company
External push-back from suppliers
processes and
External push-back from owner systems
Median Maturity
Barriers
? Low level of AWP maturity among contractors
? Not enough qualified resources for implementing AWP
|| Poor integration of AWP information system with other corporate systems
@ External push-back from engineering design contractor
? Lack of clear understanding of AWP methodology and processes
|| Lack of alignment between AWP and front end planning
@ External push-back from engineering design/procurement contractor
Lack of financial incentives to improve execution efficiency
Internal push-back from project managers
@ Engineering design sequence not able to match construction sequence
Low Maturity
Barriers
X Expectation of limited (or no) benefits to company from AWP
Internal push-back from cost estimators
X Company not interested in implementing AWP
X Awaiting more industry AWP project results before implementing
X Do not need AWP because current project performance/results are good enough
Contractor does not buy in early enough
? Need (or perceived need) for additional project team members for AWP
@ Design engineering organization not supportive of AWP
Internal push-back from general foremen
Internal push-back from field crews

Enterprise Guide
Information Management and Technology

Organizations implementing AWP need to adjust their information management and technology
infrastructure to incorporate AWP’s data requirements. At the same time, AWP adoption can be
accelerated alongside other initiatives and investments around IT that are being implemented. AWP can
act as the rationale for organizing digital data.
Project management and execution involves a series of information processes such as the following:
• Information gathering, sharing, and reporting

• Information interpretation, decision-making, and recording
• Activity, material, deliverable tracking, and monitoring
• Handover between project phases
Information can occur in a variety of forms (e.g., data, documents, pictures, or verbal conversation).
Traditional project execution relies on documents, a written form of information. Modern project execution
relies on data, especially in digital forms. No matter what form the project information takes, AWP relies
heavily on information, and especially the following elements:
• The status and progress of engineering deliverables

• The status and progress of work packages
• The status of material and equipment delivery
• The structured data of tags, materials, and equipment with required attributes values
• The status of changes in engineering, procurement, and construction
• The integration of resource readiness for construction for structuring the IWPs in the field (workface
planning)
The key to efficient information and data management is establishing a coding structure that
connects the WBS and the AWP data requirements and tracking them using a master tag register
that integrates area- and system-based data. This coding structure is the core addition to the AWP
framework in terms of information management and systems integration. Organizations can employ
multiple approaches, technologies, and tools to achieve that integration.
Implementation Examples 3 and 4 (on p. EG-20 and p. EG-22, respectively) present some aspects
of technology and information management that industry members of RT-390 have deployed in their
organizations’ AWP projects.

Enterprise Guide
Training and Knowledge Transfer for Project Management to Adopt AWP Concepts
AWP training is the primary link between the knowledge transfer from the enterprise to the project and
vice versa. As early implementers pilot the AWP delivery framework, they collect lessons learned and
start building their enterprise approach based on their organizational needs and the guidance provided in
this report. When they expand their efforts to more projects, it becomes critical to transfer knowledge to
the project teams to ensure consistent improvement of results.
The role of an enterprise-level program is critical considering the

duration of large projects and the ability to engage experienced
AWP experts from one project to the next. Establishing a
mandatory AWP training package can ensure consistent
knowledge transfer. The survey employed by RT-390 provided
Voluntary Mandatory
insights into AWP training needs (e.g., different roles have
23 23
different training needs). As maturity evolves, organizations
can start with mandatory training for management roles and
a combination of mandatory and voluntary for other team
members, as required.
Combination
RT-390 asked survey participants to identify the training 8 (n=54)
requirements they employed for AWP projects, whether
voluntary or mandatory, and to provide relevant examples. Figure EG-8. Survey
The survey received 54 responses that provided information Respondents’ Descriptions of
on organizations’ education and training efforts, and each the AWP Training They Employ
stated whether that training was voluntary, mandatory, or a
combination of voluntary and mandatory (see Figure EG-8).
Voluntary Training
Twenty-three respondents (43%) reported that their organizations utilized only voluntary AWP training:
• Some SMEs described examples where enterprise- and project-level training was available but
offered on a voluntary basis. Others described that they had not developed a formal training
package and AWP training was solely driven by experience.
• The majority of respondents described their voluntary level on AWP principles as “high” and did not
dive more deeply into exact execution and tools.
• Finally, five SMEs noted that their voluntary training is highly recommended by the organization
and they are planning on moving to mandatory training as they mature their programs and training
packages.
• It is worth noting that seven out of the 23 respondents who reported that their organizations utilized
only voluntary AWP training represented organizations at the lower maturity levels (the Exploring
and Experimenting categories).

Enterprise Guide
Mandatory Training
Another twenty-three respondents (43%) described examples of how their organizations employed
mandatory AWP training on their projects:
• Training needs often differed based on organization type and project role. For example, one owner
described: “Our internal training is mandatory and focuses on the overall process and integration
with planning. Implementation details are left to our contractors, provided they comply with the
principles we expect.”
• Other respondents stated that they employed periodic mandatory training for project management
roles, while others respondents said their organizations had mandatory training on workface
planning for field superintendents and field foremen.
• An advanced-maturity EPC contractor organization described its training: “General AWP training is
mandatory and for all job levels in the project management, engineering, procurement, construction,
and fabrication departments. WFP-specific training for a project is mandatory for all job levels in
the construction and fabrication departments. Depending on the project, commissioning may be
included.”
Combination of Voluntary and Mandatory Training

The combination of voluntary and mandatory AWP training emerged from respondents’ descriptions as a
function of the project role, stage, and contractual requirements:
• The mandatory training was a general AWP orientation that was required for all team members,
while voluntary training could be role-based or online, a “refresher” type of training. One respondent
described: “Training starts in EP phase by training project management, project engineers, and
procurement professionals. Once a construction contractor/module yard is awarded, role-based
trainings are provided as contractually mandated.”
• Another respondent stated that the engineering and construction managers received mandatory
AWP training and defined the training requirements for the rest of the team, while the AWP
champion was responsible for giving the training and tailoring it to the specific needs of each role.
AWP Scalability
As outlined in the AWP Review and Owner’s Guide, the scalability of AWP processes is an important
consideration for enterprise implementation. AWP is not a single method or a monolithic process. Much
of the documentation around AWP is described around a large project for clarity of roles and actions.
However, as true with many other project management approaches, smaller projects may combine roles
in terms of staffing and certain procedures may be scaled down. AWP is no different; what is important

Enterprise Guide
is that all projects ascribe to the basic principles of AWP such as management by work packages and
effective planning and constraint management. Smaller, routine projects may only use basic planning
activities for integrated procurement and deploy WFP. Larger projects may use full AWP for planning,
design, construction, and startup. Implementation Example 5 (on p. EG-22) presents a scalable AWP
approach employed in a small-scale project. In addition, Implementation Example 6 (on p. EG-26) outlines
how a mature owner categorized the AWP efforts for scalability at the enterprise level.
Implementation Examples
Implementation Example 1: AWP Corporate KPIs by a Mature Owner

At the enterprise level, the benefits of the Run stage (in the “crawl-walk-run” process described on
pp. EG-8 and EG-9) rely on establishing a standard process and ensuring quality by reporting requirements
for all projects. One AWP-mature owner established KPIs that needed to be reported at the end of each
stage to meet the requirements for quality in all AWP projects. The owner utilized the phases Select,
Define, and Execute for project execution. (All five Handbooks in this report use Figure EG-9 to reconcile
the different terminologies that various sectors and organizations use for project phases.)
Select Phase Define Phase Final Investment Decision

Execute Phase
Opportunity
Framing
Pre-FEED FEED
Figure EG-9. Reconciling the Terminologies Used to Describe the Phases of a Construction Project

Enterprise Guide
The corporate KPIs for quality are outlined as follows. All AWP projects are required to meet these
requirements prior to the end of each stage:
• Select Phase Maturity Assessment • Execute Phase Maturity Assessment
– Develop the first Path of Construction (PoC) in a – Include AWP coding in the
digital environment. engineering deliverables.
– Code AWP against the work breakdown structure. – EPC validates or supports the PoC.
– Include AWP requirements in the contract strategy. – Complete model reviews along the
PoC.
• Define Phase Maturity Assessment
– Issue no IWP with constraints.
– Clearly define how CWAs, CWPs, EWPs, and
PWPs support the PoC and overall project
philosophy.
– Assign appropriate tools and systems to implement
AWP.
– Include an AWP implementation plan in the project
execution plan.
– Include AWP requirements in the contract
documents.
These KPIs can act as a guide for other organizations if adjusted based on the organization’s needs. In
addition, owner organizations typically will not mandate which tools and software to use to manage an
AWP project. EPC contractors may adjust these KPIs based on which specific internal tools they utilize
for planning and execution. Also, industry members can leverage the guidance provided in Handbooks
A through E and other CII resources to develop a more detailed list of KPIs that is appropriate for their
projects. For example, an owner organization developed the list presented in Table EG-2, which it
provided to inform other members of the industry.
Table EG-2. Key Performance Indicators a Mature Owner Tracks at the Project Level
Metric Category Metric Description
Dedicated workface planners Named dedicated workface planners assigned to the project
Personnel
Ratio of planners to craft Total number of workface planners over the total number of craft
EWPs released per plan EWP with on-time release over total released EWP count
CWPs released per plan CWP with on-time release over total released CWP count
Average CWP delay Total CWP delay days over total CWP release count
Average EWP delay Total EWP delay days over total EWP release count
IWPs released per plan IWP with on-time release over total released IWP count
Schedule IWPs completed per plan IWP with on-time construction complete over total closed IWP count
Plan vs. actual MC dates Number of days difference between planned and actual mechanical
completion date
Time between construction installation Average number of days from IWP status of “construction complete” to
complete and construction closeout IWP status of “closed”
Schedule predictability and forecasting Percentage deviation (from final MC date) of forecast MC date reported
at 25%, 50%, 75% construction complete.

Enterprise Guide
Table EG-2. Key Performance Indicators a Mature Owner Tracks at the Project Level (continued)
Metric Category Metric Description
Documents in master document register Engineering deliverables to construction not assigned to CWP over total
not assigned to a CWP engineering deliverables to construction count
EWPs released with holds Total number of EWPs that have been released with a hold resulting in a
Engineering
constraint or revision
EWP revisions Total number of EWP revisions post-IFC over the total number of EWPs
released
Required at site dates achieved Number of tagged items received on time divided by total tagged item
count
CWP/IWP delays due to materials Number of CWPs/IWPs that are delayed as a result of failing to meet
Materials
material availability target
Number of tagged items not associated Count of tagged items that are not associated to a CWP
with CWP
RFIs issued: “X” weeks before IWP start Average number of days prior to IWP planned start date that an IWP RFI
is released
Average hours per IWP (planned and Total IWP hours over total IWP count (planned and actual)
actual)
Average duration of IWP execution Average number of days from IWP start to finish (planned and actual)
Planning
(planned and actual)
IWP backlog (workfront buffer) Total number of constraint-free IWP hours over total craft day hours on
site
Constraint-free IWP ready duration Average number of days between constraint-free IWP ready for
construction date and planned start date
Punchlist item count per IWP/hours Total number of punchlist items per IWP count or man-hours
Quality closeout duration Average number of days that IWPs remain in construction complete
status prior to being closed out by QC
Non-conformance reports Number of non-conformance reports per 200,000 manhours of work
Quality
Rework Number of hours spent on rework activities over total hours spent to date
MC punch Quantity of punchlist items per turnover package (mechanical walkdown)
Commissioning punch Quantity of punchlist items per turnover package (commissioning
walkdown)
Construction PF @ prime (commodity) Hours per unit of prime commodity (e.g., linear feet of pipe, kilograms of
level steel)
Construction PF @ CWP level Estimated (or earned) hours for a CWP over expanded hours.
(Some organizations state PF as expended or earned).
Performance
Construction PF @ IWP level Estimated (or earned) hours for an IWP over expended hours.
(Some organizations state PF as expended or earned).
Time on Tools Craft time spent on actual direct work, vs. support (e.g., obtaining
material) and delay (e.g., waiting for equipment)
Leading indicator: observations Number of safety observations per 200,000 manhours of work
Leading indicator: near misses Number of near misses per 200,000 manhours of work
Safety Lagging indicator: first aids Number of first aids per 200,000 manhours of work
Lagging indicator: recordable Number of recordable incidents per 200,000 manhours of work
Lagging indicator: lost time Number of lost time cases per 200,000 manhours of work

Enterprise Guide
Implementation Example 2: Enterprise Adoption Learnings from a Mature Service Provider
Understanding the Barriers

The biggest challenge was commitment from leadership. As is often the case in large organizations, the
process was siloed because engineering, procurement, and construction were separate divisions that
reported to different people. Even after all teams had bought into the idea of AWP, no one wanted overall
responsibility. As a result, the organization structured its program at the corporate function, independent
of the business lines, and established feedback loops between the program and the business lines for
knowledge transfer and continuous improvement.
Another challenge was changing the way teams performed the work; particularly the engineers. The
benefits of AWP were more evident and critical during Construction, the most expensive part of the
project. The engineers were initially unwilling to change their process for the benefit of Construction
and Startup; however, defining a robust process through the internal program showed the engineers the
benefits in streamlining the work and avoiding changes. Early successes motivated the engineers to buy
into the AWP process.
Information Management and Technology

AWP aligned with the organization’s internal initiative to move toward a digital transformation to share
engineering, procurement, and construction data more efficiently. This created the need for an execution
model to support this digital transformation and help to increase productivity on site. As the organization
developed its integrated work process and defined roles, interactions, and deliverables between
disciplines, it needed all deliverables to be digital. It also created a detailed report of attributes that went
into the model and was delivered to construction.
Using AWP as the execution model for every project improved visibility into data and a library of digital
data (e.g., packages, performance). The organization’s goal was to use digital data and AI technologies
to advance its AWP implementation. Particularly for repetitive projects, the digital transformation can
create a competitive advantage, since machine learning can be used to create the work packages.
Training and Expertise

Advancing the AWP program takes time. As the organization’s expert stated, “It takes a long time until
everyone knows exactly what they’re doing. But we got there.” The program team was responsible for
developing the integrated process and establishing feedback loops across business lines. Training
played a key role in the transition, and the organization developed 18 training videos based on project
roles. At the start of every project, the program team provides support to the project through the training
videos, structuring the initial packages, and making sure the project is staffed with the right expertise.
The training was mandatory and developed in-house using CII documents. The organization expected
future owners to have specific requirements in RFP documents based on CII reports and best practices.
Thus, it developed the training with tweaks based on its own structure, schedule, and software.

Enterprise Guide
AWP Scalability
At first, the organization only applied AWP to certain commodities (e.g., pipe, steel, electrical). It started
to see some benefits, but also faced some challenges; in particular, not having the right personnel and
workface planners on site and not having the right tools to manage work packages. These barriers
stemmed from the fragmented process. In fact, work package development started after the design
was issued, but the packages were developed by field engineers. That was problematic, since the field
engineers were putting together packages without knowing whether they had the right information to
complete them. Even so, the approach resulted in a five-percent productivity increase at the workfront.
Over the last few years, the organization has employed AWP as a standard practice for every project.
For smaller projects, it may adjust some roles, but the approach remains largely the same. It has seen
over 20% of productivity benefits compared to past projects. With the AWP program expanding, the
organization has a strategic initiative to gather data for AWP projects over the next five years.
Implementation Example 3: Execution Learnings from an AWP Mega Project

This oil & gas mega project on the Gulf Coast (shown in Figure EG-10) has seen the benefits of
implementing AWP, particularly by focusing on the integration of construction planning with materials
and engineering requirements targeting increased field productivity. The project took place during
the COVID-19 pandemic, and its early stages required substantial civil work. Many piles in a complex
local supply chain environment had to be managed through work package planning and sequencing of
execution to effectively balance production with procurement. Furthermore, substantial amounts of the
project’s piping and steel was manufactured at various sites across Asia, and equipment was globally
sourced, so the project experienced disruptions due to the effects of the pandemic on both worldwide
and regional production and transportation.
Figure EG-10. Site Photos from the Oil & Gas Project in Implementation Example 3

Enterprise Guide
The project team’s detailed backward planning of construction through the supply chain and engineering
enabled it to manage its planned execution sequence alignment and minimize the effects of the global
pandemic. As a collaborative approach between an experienced joint venture EPC and AWP-mature
owner, the AWP program implementation helped equip the teams for success in a difficult environment.
The global materials supply chain required for this project posed a major supply chain challenge in
a complex COVID environment. The team effectively used AWP to optimize the timing of overseas
deliveries and on-location materials management through a robust AWP coding structure and disciplined
implementation.
One project participant observed, “Our approach to AWP was like assembling a puzzle. The planned
Startup sequence drove the Construction assembly order, with Engineering following the same in their
design of the puzzle pieces, and procurement providing the puzzle pieces on a timely basis in line with
the schedule.” The Path of Construction (PoC) was emphasized through an integrated effort between
engineering, procurement, and construction, with many planning iterations to arrive at an aligned
sequence.
The project emphasized digitization, setting up a project data hub that – apart from providing optimal
data input/output to system tools and digitized workflows – also fed individual company systems. A
large-scale digital transformation contributed significantly to this project’s success. In addition to the
efficiency provided by using technology on the project, the project team realized considerable workflow
optimization and savings by using digital drawings instead of printed ones, and environmental benefits
came from the reduced use of paper. One team member commented, “We don’t build off of paper, we
build using the iPad.” To support the use of iPads instead of paper, the team set up a large local area
network to accommodate the approximately 6,000 people on the project site each day, including 70
to 80 workface planners who managed the flow and requirements of the work packages. The AWP
coding structure, based on a rigid nomenclature, identified the area, discipline, craft, and package ID. For
example, “IWP-1320-42-2120-012” provided all of the identification information for execution location and
associated engineering drawings and materials, and it could be used to manage related work processes.
The extensive use of KPIs for all disciplines facilitated tracking at the program level to capture gaps in
underperforming indicators and to track lessons learned. Among the most critical indicators were the
start and finish dates of IWPs, which were locked in at least four weeks ahead of their planned start dates
to facilitate the management of any remaining constraints on construction execution, including materials
management and engineering documents. The constant comparison of planned vs. actual dates helped
the schedule stay as updated and accurate as possible. The resulting roadmap for materials management
and procurement allowed for more optimized laydown utilization, identification of any preassembly
requirements, and sequencing of materials delivery. AWP processes and procedures had a significant
positive impact in a challenging global environment.

Enterprise Guide
Implementation Example 4: Information Management in an AWP Mega Project

In mega projects, a wide variety of software solutions can be used to manage information and data, details
that need to be tracked and categorized to give the project team better governance and control. This AWP
oil & gas project on the Gulf Coast utilized 50 software sources, tracked in a database and categorized by
the following and other types:
• 3D • Data
• Application Programming Interface (APIs) • Materials
• Augmented Reality (AR) • Platforms
• Automation • Planning
• Cloud • Visualization
• Coding
This practice provided visibility into the software used on the project, better management among
interfaces, and coordination within the project team on data transfer and continuity. In the field, an
important aspect to AWP is tracking progress by IWP completion. Teams commonly used visualization
tools (e.g., Power BI) to track IWP progress and communicate among project stakeholders.
Implementation Example 5: Scalable AWP for a Small Project

This project was part of a portfolio of small projects in the area of advanced recycling with budgets between
$5 million and $25 million. The owner was just branching out into advanced recycling, so this initiative
provided many opportunities to learn lessons. The project stakeholders adopted a scalable approach to
AWP. This approach performed well with the guidance of an AWP-mature owner to a contractor who was
new to the AWP concept. At the time of data collection, the project had been accelerated by 36%. The
scalable approach to AWP for small-scale projects (described in Table EG-3) can help new implementers
adopt AWP.
Table EG-3. Overview of a Small Project that Used Scalable AWP
Project Wins Project Challenges

• Great leadership • Unexplored area, so new
• Stakeholder communication technologies were being introduced
• Safety – high morale • Materials management
AWP Scalable Approach Wins AWP Scalable Approach Challenges

• Stakeholder alignment • Key players new to AWP
• Little rework • Early accelerated timeline –
• Flexible constraint management changes in IWP structure
• Accelerated schedule

Enterprise Guide
Contract Structure
The owner and the EPC contractor developed some unusual contractual and AWP solutions for this
project:
• The EPC managed a different electrical and instrumentation group for engineering and did the
purchasing. All procurement was done by the EPC on the owner’s paper (so POs were approved
quickly).
• Scalable AWP vs. Full AWP: The EPC project lead explained, “On a normal project, we would do
PoC, EWPs, sit down with their planners and go over the priorities, sequence, and goals. Then
we would break down the scopes into CWPs and IWPs. On this one, we did not do it all together.
Estimates were done very quickly on a quick think tank.”
• Three subcontractors performed execution. One sub, Sub A, did all of the mechanical and
scaffolding. Although the owner usually hired a different sub for scaffolding, Sub A had an efficient
scaffolding arm, Sub A did both mechanical and scaffolding on this project. The owner’s PM said of
this arrangement, “The collaboration has been very good and execution is better because they use
the same foremen.”
AWP Pre-Project Planning and Engineering:

The main component of AWP planning was a Path of Construction workshop that included the owner and
key players from engineering and execution. The owner’s team had broken down the plot plan into two
construction work areas (CWAs). During the PoC workshop, the group added a third CWA to account
for the pipes and stress analysis at higher levels (see Figure EG-11). The stakeholders identified which
activities needed to happen, in what order, and when they would need each engineering deliverable.
Detailed engineering was finished and done traditionally – without the use of Engineering Work Packages
(EWPs).
Figure EG-11. Construction Work Areas (CWAs) for Implementation Example 5

Enterprise Guide
According to the PM, the CWAs that were defined were smaller than for a typical full-scale AWP. These
adjustments helped with engineering dates. In addition, the project team put a lot of effort into risk
assessment and mitigation to make it work.
AWP Execution
Another deviation from full-scale AWP to the scalable approach was using Installation Work Packages
(IWPs) instead of Construction Work Packages (CWPs) to divide the scopes of work. Traditionally, IWPs
capture one to two weeks of work; however, in this smaller-scale project, the team decided to break down
the scopes of work in much larger portions (up to eight weeks). The contractor was new to AWP, so this
approach helped it to understand and manage the AWP process and subcontractors, and to track the
IWPs’ progress by using estimated vs. earned hours (using an internal system).
The project team structured IWPs and assigned naming conventions to facilitate communication among
project stakeholders:
• IWPs were numbered and described so everyone knew where each fit into the project.
• Three IWPs were created as extensions of existing IWPs. When the engineering deliverables
were not ready on time, the team added them later with “A” in the title to indicate that they were
extensions to existing IWPs.
• Each IWP contained a description of the scope and limits, drawing(s) necessary for execution, man-
hours necessary for execution, and percent complete based on progress.
IWP Progress Tracking and Productivity

The IWP structure was created by an owner that was mature in AWP implementation. The team left some
flexibility in where it drew the line for each IWP. As a result, the constraint removal window for each IWP
was more flexible than usual. This approach proved to be efficient, as the contractor performed the work
based on when materials came in and work in sections, rather than completely finishing one IWP before
moving on to the next one. This aspect of the scalable AWP approach differed from full-scale AWP
projects and was closer to traditional execution.
The team stated that these adjustments could only work with hands-on progress tracking, and only for
smaller projects. To that end, the project team employed the following approaches:
• It used quantity trackers exclusively to track the progress of IWPs.
• It updated tracking daily (man-hours).
• The general foreman communicated with all supervisors and inspected the work, using hard copies
of previous tracking and updating it as work was done. The updates came back to the construction
planner, who input new data and completions in the Excel tracking.
• The team held weekly update meetings with all construction subs.
• For managing IWPs and inputting data, the team used the same resources and process as in a full-
blown AWP (same players).
• The team tracked the performance factor ratio each week.

Enterprise Guide
The unique nature of this project made it impossible to compare its productivity with historical data from
similar projects that the same owner had executed with full AWP implementation. However, according to
the PM, the gains compared to traditional delivery were evident, especially during the Procurement stage.
The subcontractors were brought in early and could break the procurement into priorities to roll into the
schedule. Using the scalable AWP structure, the team ordered and fabricated in the right sequence – still
as a package. The full schedule was accelerated by approximately 36%.
Materials Management
Materials management was a challenge for this project. The technology employed had never been used
in this area before; therefore, the owner needed to adjust its standards for reliability and safety. These
changes and new terrain led to early “slippage,” resulting in shifts to both engineering and procurement
dates for when material was needed.
Constraint Management
Traditionally in AWP projects, constraint management and removal is done for each IWP. The challenges
this project experienced with materials rendered the flexibility in constraint removal a main element of
the scalable AWP approach. According to the EPC lead: “In this project, we may have materials just for
the next three days and not [be] sure when the materials for the fourth are going to come. We go through
constraint removal but within shorter durations.”
Change Management
The team managed some changes that came up during planning and execution by communicating and
using its collaborative approach. The owner’s team had established a shared lessons learned database
across the portfolio of projects, and many learnings followed a similar trend: change was a principal
similarity across all projects.
For this project, two principal changes came up during the Planning phase:
1. As the construction planner described: “On CWA2, we got to a point where we were ready to close
packages but had some tie-ins outstanding. Then, we created a new IWP just with the tie-ins. That
way we could close the other packages and track progress better. That was a learning we applied
to other IWPs as well. That way we did not run into the same issue of not being able to ‘close’ a
package.”
2. The second change related to challenges with materials. Engineering dates needed to be adjusted
because material deliveries arrived in pieces. There was some slippage upstream – some pieces
were missing – and that affected the productivity downstream.
In terms of execution, the project did not have much rework. The EPC lead summarized, “There were
some cases that we had to rush engineering to double-check. Interactions with all subs have been
positive. We have very effective leadership.”

Enterprise Guide
Continuous Lessons Learned

In addition to establishing a lessons learned database during the project, the team completed some
lessons learned sessions after the project ended. The contractor, who was new to the AWP framework,
reported that when core concepts on planning and granular control were already in place, the transition
to AWP adoption was easier at all levels. The same contractor was then assigned to a new full-scale
AWP project in the portfolio and has reported positive results on schedule and IWP close-out rates.
Implementation Example 6: An Owner’s Approach to Evaluating AWP Scalability

An AWP-mature owner employs a formal assessment of the project requirements to assess the scale of
AWP implementation on a given project. Teams can use the Scalable Advanced Work Packaging Report
developed by COAA as a starting point for evaluating projects. This report suggests four categories for
implementation (Categories A through D) based on project complexity, where high-complexity projects
require greater oversight and entail more risks. This approach assesses familiarity based on whether it
is a first-time or a repeatable project. This evaluation method can be adapted to suit each organization’s
institutional framework (COAA 2019).
Figure EG-12 gives an example of how one owner assesses AWP scalability across its projects. AWP
scalability efforts need to be adapted according to each organization’s context and AWP maturity.
• Legacy process
Category A: • May be utilized for non-process or projects with limited construction
Traditional Delivery activities.
• Reduce its use as the program develops.
• The constructability process is utilized for early construction input.

Category B: • Workface Planners are used. They begin to develop Installation Work
WorkFace Planning Packages (IWPs) upon receiving the IFC from Engineering.
• Construction is executed through IWPs.
Category C: • Use full WFP methods but advance construction input into project timeline
by developing a Path of Construction as input into overall project schedule.
Advancing
• Engineering Work Packages (EWPs) support the project schedule.
Construction Input • Construction is executed through IWPs.
Category D: • After completing Category C, prepare to add software.

Utilizing Advanced • The Workface Planners utilize AWP software as they develop IWPs.
This software is compatible with the Engineering modeling software
Technologies and facilitates digital delivery of material process and other aspects.
Figure EG-12. Four Categories for Scaling the AWP Process, Reported by an Owner Organization

Enterprise Guide
Conclusions
This Enterprise Guide aimed to provide guidance to owners and service providers to help them realize
AWP’s full benefits. Early implementers can use this section as a basis for structuring an AWP program,
while more mature organizations can benefit from its examples of AWP’s benefits, changes, and training
needs as assessed by an industry survey. This Guide can help the industry adopt AWP as a standard
practice and overcome the chasm in productivity benefits that happens when implementers only use
WFP (see Figure EG-13). Moving to enterprise-wide adoption of full AWP can help early implementers
mature and overcome the performance chasm.
Early
Mature Implementers
Implementers
Project Performace
Performace
Chasm
AWP Maturity
Figure EG-13. AWP Performance Improves with Maturity
This Enterprise Guide provided several key steps that organizations need follow to achieve enterprise-
level AWP readiness:
• Secure buy-in from top leadership.

• Understand the barriers: aligning AWP with engineering and onboarding partners are two barriers
organizations typically face as they move to enterprise-wide adoption.
• The AWP team, center of excellence, or other source of expertise needs to establish programmatic
changes to be applied on every project.
• Establish an AWP program – implementation steps to be followed for every project. For example,
outline a list of the deliverables necessary for AWP. (The PM would need a sign-off from top
management not to deliver any of them.) See Handbooks A through E for the steps to successful
AWP implementation at each project level.

Enterprise Guide
• Adopt tools and technology that support AWP. AWP supports IT-related initiatives as a way to
organize data.
• Establish a scalability approach for AWP. This is particularly important for early implementers.
• Establish a data collection database to support continuous improvement.
In addition, establish a robust training program to facilitate knowledge transfer from the program
to projects, considering the following key elements for knowledge transfer and the adoption of AWP
concepts by project management:
• Secure support from the program to the project team for AWP projects.
• Establish mandatory training programs, or use a combination of mandatory and voluntary programs
based on role types and project needs.
• Transition roles until AWP becomes the baseline execution method.
• To make sure these efforts do not become siloed, track lessons learned across all AWP projects.
Table EG-4 shows how AWP aligns with and differs from the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK) created by the Project Management Institute (PMI).
Table EG-4. The Relationship between the PMBOK and AWP
PMBOK AWP
Knowledge Scope Guidebook for any general project • Specialized in capital project
execution (e.g., construction, execution
software development, service) • All general principles in PMBOK
apply to AWP.
Work Breakdown • Defines work packages at the • Provides detailed descriptions for
Structure (WBS) and leaf levels of WBS. each work package type.
Work Packages • Does not provide detailed • Work packages are the core
descriptions of work packages. concepts of AWP.

Appendix
Survey Respondents’ Demographics and AWP Experience
The academic members of RT-390 developed a survey with input from 22 subject matter experts (SMEs).
The survey served as supportive material for creating an execution guide that could capture the value
propositions for the granular benefits, the changes, and the training needs that have been observed with
the use of AWP. After refining the survey and piloting it with a working group of RT-390’s academic team
and three SMEs who were industry members, RT-390 widely distributed the survey via the Qualtrics tool
(qualtrics.com) and received 101 responses. The survey asked participants to respond to all questions
that aligned with their expertise, and 85% of respondents answered every question. Figures I-1 through
I-4 capture the participants’ demographics and AWP experience.
Survey respondents were asked to identify which type of organization they worked for by selecting among
several options: owner, contractor, engineer/designer, supplier, or consultant. As Figure I-1 shows, the
majority of respondents reported being employed by owner (37%) or contractor (31%) organizations. Most
respondents in the “Other” category (five out of seven) specified that they were part of EPC contractor
organizations, while the other two self-identified as an AWP project manager and retired.
Owner
31 Other
7
Consultant
6
Contractor
28 Supplier
1
(n=83) Engineer/Designer
7
Figure I-1. Respondents by Organization Type
AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations I-1

Appendix
The team asked respondents to identify their principal roles within their organizations (see Figure I-2).
Of the 82 respondents, 53 held management positions (e.g., project director or project manager). Many
respondents in the “Other” category identified AWP-related roles:
• AWP manager • Construction planner
• AWP superintendent • Corporate AWP/WFP manager
• AWP system development manager • Project controls manager
• Construction manager • Technology advisor
Business manager
Project director or project manager
Functional manager
Functional specialist
Field manager
Technical sales/ business development
Other
(n=82) 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure I-2. Respondents by Principal Role
The respondents’ reported years of experience in the design and construction industry averaged to
21 years (n=81). In addition to experience in the industry, the participants were asked to assess their
personal and organizational knowledge with AWP (see Figures I-3 and I-4 on the next page). These
assessments of levels of personal knowledge levels and company experience were descriptive to permit
easier self-identification.

Appendix
Expert: deep knowledge of AWP, clear understanding

of application to projects; leads development efforts
Advanced intermediate: broad knowledge of AWP

with depth in some areas; uses AWP in practice
Intermediate: working knowledge of AWP concepts,

some experience in practice
Beginner: limited knowledge of AWP
(n=82) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure I-3. Respondents’ Personal Knowledge of AWP/WFP
In terms of personal experience (Figure I-3), 78% of participants reported they had high levels of personal
experience with AWP, with 35% self-identifying as Advanced intermediate: broad knowledge of AWP with
depth in some areas; uses AWP in practice and 43% claiming to be Expert: deep knowledge of AWP,
clear understanding of application to projects; leads deployment efforts.
Similar trends were also captured for respondents’ organizations’ levels of experience and implementation
of AWP projectse (Figure I-4): 33 out of 81 respondents reported employing AWP as a standard practice
at the enterprise level, while 35 out of 81 worked for companies that had multiple AWP projects underway.
Enterprise: spreading AWP/WFP throughout

the company or business unit
Deploying: multiple projects underway

using AWP/WFP
Experimenting: pilot projects underway

using AWP/WFP
Exploring: no projects;
considering adoption
(n=81) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure I-4. Respondents’ Company’s Level of Experience with AWP/WFP

Bibliography
AWP CBA (2021). AWP Return on Investment (ROI) Tool (Excel workbook). Advanced Work Packaging
Community for Business Advancement. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute. Accessed at:
https://www.construction-institute.org/resources/advanced-work-packaging-(awp)-overview/engage
CII (1988). Work Packaging for Project Control. Research Summary 6-6. Austin, TX: Construction
Industry Institute.
CII (2012). Industrial Modularization: How to Optimize; How to Maximize. Research Summary 283-1.
Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2015). Making the Case for Advanced Work Packaging as a Standard (Best) Practice. Research
Summary 319-1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2015a). Validating Advanced Work Packaging as a Best Practice: A Game Changer. Implementation
Resource 319-2. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2015b). Validating Advanced Work Packaging as a Best Practice – A Game Changer. Presentation
to the 2015 CII Annual Conference, August 4–5. Boston, MA: Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2016). Effective Project Alignment for Construction Success. Implementation Resource 310-2.
CII (2018). Improving Frontline Supervision in Industrial Construction. Final Report 330. Austin, TX:
Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2020). Improved Integration of the Supply Chain in Materials Planning and Work Packaging. Final
Report 344, Version 2.0. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2020a). Integrating Commissioning and Startup into the AWP Work Process. Final Report 364.
CII (2020b). Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging: Phase 1. Final Report DCC-04. Austin,
TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2020c). Promoting the Use of Advanced Work Packaging: Phase 2. Final Report 365. Austin, TX:
Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2021). Modernizing the Supply Chain and Increasing the Value of AWP. Final Report 363. Austin,
TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2023). AWP Digital Threads to Enable Supply Chain Visibility on Capital Projects. Final Report
TC-03, Version 1.1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2023a). Business Case Analysis Guide for Industrial Modularization. Final Report 396. Austin, TX:
Construction Industry Institute, in press
CII (2023b). AWP Data Requirements Implementation Guideline. Special Report 19-01, Version 1.4.

CII/COAA (2013). Advanced Work Packaging: Design through Workface Execution. Implementation
Resource 272-2, Version 3.1, Volumes I–III. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute and Calgary,
AB: Construction Owners Association of Alberta.
CII/COAA (2013a). Advanced Work Packaging: Design through Workface Execution. Research
Summary 272-1, Version 2.1. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute and Calgary, AB:
Construction Owners Association of Alberta.
COAA (2019). Scalable Advanced Work Packaging Report. Calgary, AB: Construction Owners
Association of Alberta. Accessed at: https://coaa.ab.ca/document/scalable-awp-advanced-work-
packaging-report/
O’Brien, W. J. and Ponticelli, S. (2015). Transforming the Industry: Advanced Work Packaging as a
Standard (Best) Practice. Research Report 319-11. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
PMI (1996). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.

Research Team 390, Development of an AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects
Ravi Bhamidipati, Victaulic
Kip Charlton, Eastman Chemical Company
Shannon Dacosta, Fluor Corporation
* Vassiliki Demetracopolou, The University of Texas at Austin
* Kasey M. Faust, The University of Texas at Austin
German Guio, Honeywell International Inc.
Mikitaka Hayashi, JGC Corporation
Paige Hicks, Bechtel Global Corporation
Michael Kluck, KBR
Jay Moser, Shell Global Solutions US Inc.
Quang Moulton, INEOS Group Holdings S. A.
* William O’Brien, The University of Texas at Austin
Douglas Omichinski, Bechtel Global Corporation, Vice Chair
Alexandre Praxedes, Verum Partners
Geoff Roberts, Oracle USA, Inc.
Brandon Shell, ExxonMobil Corporation, Chair
Peter Weaver, Chevron

* Principal authors
Editor: Michael E. Burns

Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316
FR-390

CII AWP Execution Planning Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CII AWP Execution Planning Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

CII AWP Execution Planning Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AWP Execution Planning Guide

for Projects and Organizations

Final Report 390

Owners Contractors Service Providers

Construction Industry Institute

Final Report 390

The University of Texas at Austin

Printed in the United States of America.

• Providing guidance to owners and early implementers

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations v

AWP Execution Planning Guide

Final Report 390

Final Report 390

Owner’s Guide AWP Review and Owner’s Guide

D: Commissioning and Startup

Final Report 390

Final Report 390

Final Report 390

Final Report 390

Figure 1. The Elements of Final Report 390

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations vi

Executive Summary iii

AWP Review and Owner’s Guide 1-1

Handbook A: Preliminary Planning and Design A-1

Handbook B: Detailed Engineering B-1

Handbook C: Construction Execution, Testing, and Completions C-1

Handbook D: Commissioning and Startup D-1

Handbook E: Procurement and Supply Chain Process E-1

Enterprise Guide EG-1

Appendix: Survey Respondents’ Demographics and AWP Experience I-1

Final Report 390

1.1. What is AWP?

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-2

1.2. What is new with AWP?

1.3. AWP’s relationship to other project improvement approaches

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-3

1.4. AWP and WorkFace Planning

ADVANCED WORK PACKAGING

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-4

2.1. What are the benefits of AWP?

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-5

2.2. Maturity and Implementation

• Stage I – Early Stages

These levels reflect the journey a firm takes to adopt AWP.

implementation. Typically, they implement aspects of AWP

between an organization’s AWP maturity and its project Stage I

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-6

Figure 1-3. AWP Maturity and Project Performance

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-7

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-8

What can AWP do? What can AWP not fix?

What can AWP do? (What is AWP?)

What is AWP unable to fix or solve? (What is AWP not?)

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-9

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-10

Digitalization and new technology

AWP Execution Planning Guide for Projects and Organizations 1-11

Define your expectations