Michelin Mezquite Project

2018 Q1
Agenda

Background (5 minutes)

Scope (10 Minutes)

Results (30 Minutes)

Recommendations & Open Discussion (45

minutes)
 Time on Tools®: What It’s Not

Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations
 Time on Tools®: Defined

Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

A STANDARDIZED METHODOLOGY developed by Faithful+Gould to:

IDENTIFY QUANTIFY THE PROVIDE DATA REDUCE THE

BARRIERS IMPACT of essential to the IMPACT of those
that prevent crews those barriers development of barriers in future
from working mitigation plans events
and BEST
PRACTICES
 Time on Tools®: Study Program
Timeline
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

OBSERVATIONS MADE DRAFT REPORT DISCUSS FINDINGS AGREE NEXT STEPS

6 - 16 Mar, 2018 Submitted Mar 30, 2018 Today, Apr 10, 2018 April 2018
 Time on Tools®: Scope
16 STUDIES
Background
Scope
Results 2 WEEK OBSERVATION PERIOD
Recommendations
CAPITAL PROJECT SCOPE

2 REPORTING PARAMETERS

LOCATION TRADE

Mechanical
TC West TC East
Warehouse Electrical

Utilities Civil / Structural

Soft Trades
 Time on Tools®: Overall Results

Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

External
Historical
This Program
CAP Programs

Working Time 51.0% 5 hrs 6 mins 2% (9 mins ) MORE tha n

Early Finish 1.0% 0 hrs 6 mins 2% (13 mi ns ) LESS tha n

Standby Time 40.9% 4 hrs 5 mins 3% (20 mi ns ) LESS tha n

Coordination Delays 7.1% 0 hrs 42 mins 4% (23 mins ) MORE tha n

 Time on Tools®: Actual Work Start &
Early Finish
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations
INDUSTRY HISTORICAL AVERAGE AWST = 76 MINS INDUSTRY HISTORICAL AVERAGE EF = 19 MINS

• All Early Finish below Industry

Average.

• Average Actual Work Start

Times better than industry
average.

• AWST of well below 1 hour is

achievable at this site.
 Time on Tools®: Actual Work Start
Breakdown
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

• Permitting is the primary concern

for prompt start-up

• Toolbox Talks were underutilized

- can help speed permit sign on.

• JSA better than target,

sometimes conducted mid-shift.

• Job set-up involves:

• All-Hands safety meetings

(averaged 5 min)

• Tool and Materials staging –

Main opportunity to improve.

• Start of shift travel – minimal as

crew usually meet at job site.
 Time on Tools®: Wrench Time

Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

• Prompt start get crews within

5% of max Working Time %
in hour 2

• Dip around hour 6 & 7 is

Lunch break.

• Less work in hour 11 as many

shift were only 9 hours in
duration

• Possible fatigue
consideration with lower
percentage Working Time
after Lunch
 Time on Tools®: Stand-By Time
Comparisons
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

Best Practice

PRIORITY 1

PRIORITY 2
 Time on Tools®: Priority 1 – Waiting
on Equipment
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

Study Program Results

Category accounted for 43 minute(s) or 7% of Standard Shift

Category accounted for 18% of Stand-by Time

Historical Comparisons
Comparisons are made with Capital Project Work Program results only.

Category results for this Study Program were:

16 mins MORE than Industry Average (at 27 mins)

Best Practice Comparison

GAP FROM INDUSTRY STANDARD:
16 mins / 60 mins x 1300 FTEs x $5 / Hour:
=$1.7K / DAY or $485K / YR
Comparisons are made with Capital Project Work Program results only.
Category results for this Study Program were:
33 mins MORE than Best Practice (at 10 mins)
 Time on Tools®: Priority 1 – Waiting
on Equipment
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations FINDINGS:

• Accounts for 43 minutes of an average shift.

• Higher than Industry Averages by 16 minutes / shift.

• Two shifts drove the bulk of the lost Working Time

• Pipe fitting crew had consistent issues with an-lifts not being charged, 150 minutes lost to
equipment breakdown in a single shift.

• HVAC fitting crew had to utilize ladders as sequencing of work prevented the use of man-lifts,
110 minutes of material travel & collection in a single shift.

• Several crews expressed opinions that the issues highlighted above were not isolated
incidents.

• Slightly elevated levels of material travel and collection to be expected because the work required
significant working at height on man-lifts.
 Time on Tools®: Priority 1 – Waiting
on Equipment
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations Recommendation #1: Recommendation #2:
Establish clear responsibility and Increase the focus on sequencing
accountability with each sub-contractor to discussions, to enable crews to utilize the
ensure charging of equipment. most appropriate equipment for their task.

Charging Sequencing
• Communicate clear expectations to
• Ensure equipment access requirements are
workforce that equipment is always fully
considered in work sequencing.
available for use during shift time.
• Assign a team to review the remaining
• Make a person responsible within each
sequence of activities on the project.
sub-contractor for ensuring suitable
arrangements are made each day to
• Consider re-sequencing activities where
charge equipment.
there are potential obstacles to the use of
appropriate equipment (and tools).
• Require reporting on all instances of
insufficient charging.
• Encourage sub-contractors to work with
safety personnel investigating alternate
• Analyze the root causes of all events.
equipment options, where it is not possible
to optimize sequence of work.
• Take action to increase provision of access
to electrical power where necessary.
 Time on Tools®: Priority 2 – Waiting
on Materials
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

Study Program Results

Category accounted for 37 minute(s) or 6% of Standard Shift

Category accounted for 15% of Stand-by Time

Historical Comparisons
Comparisons are made with Capital Project Work Program results only.

Category results for this Study Program were:

18 mins MORE than Industry Average (at 19 mins)

Best Practice Comparison

Comparisons are made with Capital Project Work Program results only.

GAP FROM INDUSTRY STANDARD: Category results for this Study Program were:
18 mins / 60 mins x 1300 FTEs x $5 / Hour: 27 mins MORE than Best Practice (at 10 mins)

=$2K / DAY or $550K / YR

 Time on Tools®: Priority 2 – Waiting
on Materials
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations FINDINGS:

• Accounts for 37 minutes of an average shift.

• Higher than industry Average by 18 minutes per shift.

• No major (30m+ events), driven by high volume of small events.

• Material supply issues were responsible for two significant Coordination Delays.

• Also concern raised regarding out-of-sequence work because of sprinkler heads no being supplied on time.

• Some positive examples of strong 5S behavior, but also areas for improvement:

• Sort – Good – Low levels of unnecessary materials on site.

• Set-in-order – Opportunity – small parts often not well organized and many parts not stored close to
point of work.

• Shine – Good – Clean site that is uncluttered and well maintained.

• Standardize – Opportunity – minimize in-field preparation by utilizing support staff and non-busy
periods to prepare necessary materials.

• Sustain – Opportunity – build on good start in this area to reduce material travel and collection times.
 Time on Tools®: Priority 2 – Waiting
on Materials
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations Recommendation:
Encourage the use of indoor laydown areas to efficiently store materials close
to the point of work.

5S Incentive Scheme
• We have previously seen a 30% reduction in material collection and travel time as a result
of a 5S incentive scheme at a comparable major manufacturing construction project.

• Provide high-level training to key personnel in sub-contractors to demonstrate positive 5S

practices.

• Actively reward and recognize efficient practices to encourage other contractors to adopt
similar practices.

• Challenge sub-optimal practices (regular long trips for basic materials, poorly arranged
supplies etc.) then follow-up to reward any positive improvements noted.

• Work with sub-contractors to agree the assignment of suitable indoor lay down areas and
best practices for laying out materials.

• Build a culture of ‘no excuses for standing idle’, as if the crew cannot do their current scope
they could be preparing their material needs for future tasks.
 Time on Tools®: Priority 3 –
Coordination Delays
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

Program Results

Category accounted for 42 minutes or 7% of Standard Shift

Historical Comparisons
Comparisons are made with CAP Work Program results only.

Category results for this Study Program were:

23 mins MORE than Industry Average (at 19 mins)

GAP FROM INDUSTRY STANDARD:

23 mins / 60 mins x 1300 FTEs x $5 / Hour:

=$2.5K / DAY or $698K / YR

 Time on Tools®: Priority 3 –
Coordination Delays
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations FINDINGS:

• Accounts for 42 minutes of an average shift.

• Higher than industry Average by 23 minutes per shift.

• 51 Coordination Delays observed affecting 75% of shifts.

• Major Coordination Delay (>30 minutes) observed in each of the three buildings studied.

• Most significant impacts were in TC720 and Warehouse – least congested areas of
the site.

• Each of these shifts lost over 130 minutes to avoidable Coordination Delays.

• Communication of requirements appeared to be the root cause of the most

significant delays.

• There was limited evidence of crews having contingency plans in place when
their planned scope could not be executed.
 Time on Tools®: Priority 3 –
Coordination Delays
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations Recommendation:
Provide visualization tools to assist coordination planning between crews.

Zone Planning
• Sub-divide management of building into smaller areas (e.g. TC720) and develop a daily plan for
space allocation for crews in that zone.

• Use whiteboard with outline of building, then move counters and mark-up board to represent crew
movements and hand-over points.

• Mitigate potential clashes by agreeing contingency plans in advance.

• Flag open items that interface with crews working in other zones (e.g. working at height on east
side of wall, will prevent people working underneath on west side of wall).

• Utilize the permitting process as a tool for driving discussion in this area.

• Make priority calls in advance to provide crews with opportunity to change plans.
 Time on Tools®: Priority 3 –
Coordination: Example Zone Plan
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations Outdoor Laydowns

Inspection
10-11am
TC620 TC720 TC820

Potential Clash
Civils need area
Crew from 620
need this space

by 3pm
after 1pm

Working this direction

TC720 Services
 Time on Tools®: Room for
Improvement
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

Other Stoppages: Planning (Pre-Fabrication)

• High degree of in-field fabrication required on large diameter metal piping.

• Major factor in above average planning and method work instruction events on those shifts.

Recommendation: Investigate opportunities for pre-fabrication of large diameter metal piping to reduce
installation schedules.

Permit Preparation
• Permitting time was observed to be 9 minutes more thank industry averages (including sites with live
process systems)

• Crews typically had to wait for supervision to arrive with permits before signing on, then often faced
long lines as many were covered on one permit.

Recommendation: Ensure permits are fully ready for execution at the start of shift.
 Time on Tools®: Room for
Improvement
Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

Travel: Access to Food Vendors

• Only one canteen at far west-end of site required significant travel for crews if they were not able to
bring/store a packed lunch.

• Travel time significantly reduced effective rest time provided to workers in their break.

Recommendation: Provide access to additional food vendors close to the point of work.

Inspections
• Radiography inspection in UT125 building prevented several crews from working because of 15m
exclusion zone.

• Crews did not appear to be aware that inspection would occur in that area at that time, so had bo
alternate plans.

Recommendation: Schedule major inspections at times when they will not disrupt other work in the
immediate vicinity, or plan around those inspections.
 Time on Tools®: Key Recommendations

Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

Rec Mitigation
Area Recommendation Mitigation Opportunity
# Category
Reduce Waiting on Equipment by 9 min / shift for all
Establish clear responsibility and Sub-contractors must report all instances of Procedural /
crews
1 Equipment accountability with each sub-contractor to electric charge not being available and the Managerial
=
ensure charging of equipment. underlying root cause, to mitigate future issues. Enhancement
$273k / year additional Working Time
Reduce Waiting on Equipment by 5 min / shift for all
Increase the focus on sequencing
Review remaining schedule for sequencing crews
2 Equipment discussions, to enable crews to utilize the Focused Study
conflicts and identify specific mitigations =
most appropriate equipment for their task.
$152k / year additional Working Time
Reduce Waiting on Materials by 11 min / shift for all
Encourage the use of indoor laydown areas to Implement a 5S incentive scheme to reward crews (Previous experience has resulted in 30%
Knowledge
3 Materials efficiently store materials close to the point of positive behavior and flag up strong examples to
Transfer
reduction in events)
work. follow for efficient material storage. =
$334k / year additional Working Time
Coordination
Utilize 'Zone Planning' on a daily basis to agree Procedural / Reduce Coordination time by 23 min / shift for all crews
(Plus Materials Provide visualization tools to assist
4 priority calls and hand-offs between crews working Managerial =
and coordination planning between crews
in each zone of the plant. Enhancement $698k / year additional Working Time
Inspection)
Investigate opportunities for pre-fabrication of Facilitate the set up of well supplied pre- Procedural /
Other
5 Stoppages
large diameter metal piping to reduce fabrication stations, or pre-order large sections of Managerial Reducing schedule duration for installation times.
installation schedules piping as per the BIM designs for the plant. Enhancement
Bring in supervision early, or use their time during
the previous shift, to arrange all permit Reduce Permitting delays by 9 min / shift for all MEP
Procedural /
Ensure permits are fully ready for execution at requirements prior to the arrival of crews on site. crews.
6 Permitting Managerial
the start of shift. Keep size of the group covered by permit =
Enhancement
manageable to facilitate Toolbox talks to promptly $273k / year additional Working Time
brief them on permit details.
Reduce travel at breaks by 6 mins per shift for half the
Provide access to additional food vendors Provide food trucks by the lunch tents for the Logistical workforce
7 Travel
close to the point of work. Utilities and TC buildings. Enhancement =
$105k / year additional Working Time.
Reduce Inspection delays by 3 mins per shift for Utilities
Schedule radiography (and similarly disruptive) Procedural /
Review arrangements for scheduling major workforce (congested areas)
8 Inspections inspections out of hours, or pre-plan other scopes Managerial
inspections =
for crews working in the effect area. Enhancement
$28k / year additional Working Time.
 Time on Tools®: Next Steps

Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations
Target
working time

REQUIRED INCREASE IN
WORKING TIME
=
61% 61 MINUTES PER SHIFT

14 min / shift reduction in Waiting on Equipment

11 min / shift reduction in Waiting on Materials

23 min / shift reduction in Coordination Events

9 min / shift reduction in Travel to/from Breaks

1 min / shift reduction in Inspection Events

 Time on Tools®: Next Steps

Background
Scope
Results
Recommendations

SET TARGETS FORM TEAMS ARRANGE FOLLOW- CONSIDER OTHER

Calculate detailed costs To deliver the UP OBSERVATIONS AREAS
of mitigations and mitigations, involving Measure progress Review other areas in
develop plan with fixed the Contractors in the and adjust the facility lifecycle for
timeline solution mitigations process improvement
Stay in Touch.
FGOULD.COM

@fgouldconnect

Faithful+Gould