CII RT 211: Effective Use of the Global Engineering Workforce

1
CII RT 211 Effective Use of the Global
Engineering Workforce
IMPLEMENTATION SESSION
Moderator Karl E. Seil Stone Webster, A Shaw
Group Co.
CII Annual Conference 2005
2
CII Research Team 211 Members

• Robert J. Beaker - General Motors Corporation
  (co-chair)
• Karl E. Seil - Stone Webster, A Shaw Group Co.
  (co-chair)
• Hector Brouwer de Koning - Black Veatch
• Dennis Chastain - Mustang Engineers
  Constructors, L.P.
• Chuan Victor Chen - Pennsylvania State
  University
• Gregory Gould - Burns McDonnell
• John Hackney - Nova Chemicals Corporation
• Lona Hankins - ConocoPhillips
• Robert E. Houghtaling - DuPont Engineering
• George Joseph - Pennsylvania State University
• Aivars E. Krumins - ABB Lummus Global
• John I. Messner - Pennsylvania State University
• James B. Mynaugh - Rohm and Haas Company
• Batuk Patel - The Dow Chemical Co.
• Matthew J. Petrizzo - Washington Group
  International
• Reinhard Pratt - AMEC, Inc.
• Gerald A. Schacht - Abbott Laboratories
• Bruce A. Strupp Perot Systems
• H. Randolph Thomas - Pennsylvania State
  University

3
Panel Members
Remote
Local
Dr. John Messner Assistant Professor, Arch.
Engr. Penn State University
Marcel Prunaiche Managing Director Washington
Group InternationalRomanian Operations
Center Bucharest, Romania
Lona Hankins Project Team Leader ConocoPhillips. B
elle Chasse, LA
Pooran Tripathi Managing Director, Stone
Webster, Rolta Ltd. (SWRL) Mumbai, India
Todd White Engineering Manager Anheuser-Busch,
Inc. St. Louis, MO
Aivars Krumins V.P. Engineering /
Procurement ABB Lummus Global Houston, TX
4
Definition

• A Global Virtual Engineering Team (GVET) is a
  group of geographically dispersed engineers that
  needs to overcome
• Space and Time issues,
• Function and Organizational barriers, and
• National, and Cultural differences

5
Brief RT 211 Chronology

• Kickoff Meeting March 2004
• Survey April June, 2004
• Total number of survey responses 47
• 19 Owner and 28 EPC individuals submitted surveys
• Companies 33
• 13 Owners and 20 EPC companies
• In-Depth Interviews (21 total) June August,
  2004
• Domestic 17 managers
• Foreign office interviews 4 managers
• Detailed Case Study July - August 2004
• 5 projects within one CII company
• GVET Planner Development August 2004 March
  2005
• 2 Focus Group Meetings to Validate Framework

6
Objectives

• Determine driving factors for GVET.
• Determine current status of GVETs, tools, and
  work processes.
• Define criteria for successful GVET adoption and
  lessons learned from past experiences.

Develop a planning tool for global engineering
work force establishment and maintenance.
7
GVET Planner Demo
8
Panel Members
Remote
Local
Marcel Prunaiche Managing Director Washington
Group InternationalRomanian Operations
Center Bucharest, Romania
Dr. John Messner Assistant Professor, Arch.
Engr. Penn State University
Lona Hankins Project Team Leader ConocoPhillips. B
elle Chasse, LA
Pooran Tripathi Managing Director, Stone
Webster, Rolta Ltd. (SWRL) Mumbai, India
Todd White Engineering Manager Anheuser-Busch,
Inc. St. Louis, MO
Aivars Krumins V.P. Engineering /
Procurement ABB Lummus Global Houston, TX
9
Drivers of GVET
10
Success Failure Factors
11
Impact of GVET on Project
Typical Impact on
12
Impact of GVET
For projects performed by your company with
Global Virtual Engineering Teams, what is the
typical impact on



13
Panel Discussion / Q A
Remote
Local
Dr. John Messner Assistant Professor, Arch.
Engr. Penn State University
Marcel Prunaiche Managing Director Washington
Group InternationalRomanian Operations
Center Bucharest, Romania
Lona Hankins Project Team Leader ConocoPhillips. B
elle Chasse, LA
Pooran Tripathi Managing Director, Stone
Webster, Rolta Ltd. (SWRL) Mumbai, India
Todd White Engineering Manager Anheuser-Busch,
Inc. St. Louis, MO
Aivars Krumins V.P. Engineering /
Procurement ABB Lummus Global Houston, TX
14
Experience of Survey Participants

• Greater than 5 years of personal experience with
  global virtual engineering teams
• Owner 15.7
• EPC 55.5

• Greater than 5 years of company experience with
  global virtual engineering teams
• Owner 52.6
• EPC 62.9

• Companies with more than US100 million size
  projects executed with global engineering teams
• Owner 47.3
• EPC 55.5

• Owner 57.8 use global VT on many projects
• EPC 66.6 use global VT on many projects

• Plans to increase implementation of global
  virtual teaming
• Owner 68.7
• EPC 92.5

15
Team Dynamics / Commitment

• 74 of EPC respondents have permanent
  domestic overseas engineering design offices
  participating in global virtual teaming.
• How does global VT impact the team
  feeling for individuals who are geographically
  isolated from the majority of the group?
• Owner ? 73.3 responded as feel LESS like an
  integrated team
• EPC ? 68.0 responded as feel LESS like an
  integrated team
• Team members have less trust
• Owner ? 57.1
• EPC ? 61.5
• Does a Global VT increase the time spent by
  your project management team on the project?
• Owner ? 42.8 responded yes
• Range 25, 20, 15, 15, 10, 3-5
• EPC ? 77.7 responded yes
• Range 75, 40, 20, 15, 10, 5, 2

16
Technology