Industry 4.0 in oil and gas - Constructing Excellenceconstructingexcellence.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/... · this line this line No text beyond No text beyond Finance - create a demonstrable

this line this line

No text beyond No text beyond

Industry 4.0 in oil and gas

“OS 2.0”

Don Ward

Chief Executive

Constructing Excellence/ECI

1

www.eci-online.org

this line this line


1. Introduction to ECI, Constructing Excellence’s sister organisation

2. The agenda for change in engineering construction (oil and gas)

a) Collaboration

b) Digitalisation

3. OS 2.0

Contents2

this line this line


this line this line


Establish the Evidence• Industry-focussed research• Task forces

Share the Knowledge• Conferences• Workshops• Site Visits

Apply the Practice• Publications, reports• ACTIVE• In-house support

Core activities

this line this line


Failings on mega projects

Poor performance, productivity and HSE

Inadequate innovation

Insufficient integration, collaboration and early

supply chain involvement

The key issues affecting the use of capital

this line this line


Owners: 50% cost saving needed. Data and transparency across supply chain is key.

EPCs: Collaboration, standardisation and efficiency as well as focus on whole life value rather than just operating costs.

Manufacturers and vendors: Greater standardisation and innovation alongside a share in both risk & return. Also leasing proposals.

Demand-side consultants: Greater reward for industry based on long-term project success and rewards for innovation. Long-term relationships, continuity of work, portfolio so that lessons learned can be applied on future projects

Supply-side consultants: Reduced friction and lower costs of entry, transparency and fit and greater organisational memory.

Academics: Align industry to small number of key success factors and then work together on these. Create space for academic involvement. Robust baseline and measurement over time

Challenges and Opportunities

this line this line


Finance - create a demonstrable platform to show what people will get when they invest.

Behaviours – need to build trust across the supply chain from the top down, existing hierarchies often prohibits trust.

Trust – create an industry structure that supports move to more granularity and transparency e.g. the way Amazon has done in the grocery sector.

Shared Gains - common targets & incentivisation with a single integrated project team sharing risk and reward – the current contractual model does not support this.

Big Data – effective data management and sharing will create transparency and enable new entrants into the industry and create more investment. There is an opportunity to explore and de-mystify activities such as block-chain.

Mindset – more than a procurement framework, it needs to include a contractual, legislative and collaborative framework. This requires client leadership to deliver and drive.

Leadership – needs to be defined and often comes from crisis.

Collaboration – projects such as Heathrow T5 and the Olympic Park demonstrate the value of collaboration. Owners need to be educated to mandate change and not drive down costs and create an adversarial environment.

Receptiveness – collaborative leadership is the right leader at the right time, who is receptive to change. Have companies contracted out too much leadership?

Benchmarking – Look at the business context, careful not to misuse benchmarking data, especially on project costs.

What will it take to make a difference?

this line this line


“Has the oil & gas industry finally turned its

reputation for always delivering projects behind

schedule and over budget?”

There is a growing list of mid to large projects that

have delivered on target over the last 12 months…

Six reasons are cited:

1. Spare capacity through the supply chain

2. Service sector collaboration

3. Improved project management

4. Greater corporate discipline

5. More pre-FID planning

6. Reduced scope

Wood Mackenzie

14th August 2018

“Investors are about to find out whether

the world’s largest oil companies have

learned their lesson”

$80bn cost blowout in major projects during

era of $100 crude

The world’s biggest energy companies are

going to sanction the first slate of mega

projects since the oil price crash in 2014

Firms will approve about $300bn in spending

on such projects in 2019 and 2020

Dan Murtaugh, Bloomsburg

14th August 2018

Two views of the sector in August 2018…

this line this line


The crisis led to incremental improvement but not transformational change

• “we have seen bits of incremental change locally but no transformational change or innovation”

• “we focused on being more predictable, now need to be more competitive [on cost & value]”

• “no structural change, just individual firms on particular projects”

• “there is a disruption coming from someone who has figured out how to do it radically differently”

Competition for capital increases while project performance does not

• “we are not competing well with other destinations for capital”

• “oil and gas has competition from renewables purely on cost, this is a new dimension of the challenge”

Annual conference Oct 2019

“Did we waste a good crisis?”

this line this line


Industry-level standardisation could eliminate a lot of waste but remains elusive• “if we all let go of our individual company standards it would help the supply chain a

lot and it would help the operator to be dealing with the same kit”• “try to get away from bespoke mega projects to smaller scale repeatable projects”

Banks assert more control and drive risk further down the supply chain, increasing cost

• “how do you distribute and share risk”• “the scale of the up-side means it is worth taking some risk [through innovation]”• “we need a collaborative partnership with investors, owners, operators and supply

side - we have common cause”

Many companies still fail to capture lessons learned and transfer knowledge to new projects

• “we haven’t learned and we haven’t transferred learning”• “we need to convert lessons that were learned the hard way so we don’t repeat

mistakes”

The big themes of change in recent years (2)

this line this line


Articulate a clear road map to go from today to a different way of working• "I don't see a clear path yet"

More collaborative contracting/alliances• Align everyone's commercials with the success of the project

• Make it worthwhile for owners to invest in building capabilities in the supply chain

• Make it worthwhile for the supply chain to rethink the fundamental approach to project delivery

• Empower the people delivering the project across the supply chain

Harnessing the full power of innovation and digital technology to enable structural

transformation of how projects are delivered• Improve or transform processes first, then enable them with appropriate digital technology

• Transform in an agile way (develop and fail fast)

• Consider ring-fenced new business units to pilot new disruptive approaches

• Leverage the digital transformation to attract new talent

Sector-level standardisation of processes and requirements• Allow re-use of design elements and equipment versus bespoke solutions

• Better capture learning curve benefits

What can improve performance?

this line this line


Starting Point – Change in circumstances in the Oil & Gas sector (UKCS)

• Collaborate to remain competitive – Sir Ian Wood Report (Maximising Economic Recovery - MER) 2014

• Increased control and competition at a business and project level do not guarantee competitiveness.

• Positive examples of collaborative behaviour leading to project success.

• Report focus mainly on the need for more business / business and operator / operator collaboration.

• Dramatic oil price reduction in Q4 2014 (from circa $110 / BBL) drove urgent oil & gas sector action.

• New Industry Regulator formed in 2015 – Oil & Gas Authority (OGA)

• MER Report recommended.

• With powers to mandate industry collaboration.

• ECITB Project Management Conference – Nov 2015

• Collaboration for Efficiency and Cost Reduction

• Collaboration Workshop feedback

• How do we really improve collaboration at project level??

• Many of the PM conference delegates were looking for help with how to achieve project collaboration.

Collaborating at project level

this line this line


The 2015 ECITB PM Conference showed there was an

‘overwhelming endorsement for a

better approach to project collaboration’

In 2016 the ECITB launched the

Project Collaboration Toolkit

Designed as an easy-to-use ‘go to’ guide

to support project collaboration

from inception through to close-out

(framework of ISO 440001)

Project Collaboration Toolkit

this line this line


Major refinery complex: Asset reliability programme – a data management project

UKCS new field development: Subsea and tie-back project

Major offshore platform: Decommissioning and topsides removal project

Production: Concentric gas lift flowline project

UKCS major field: Second phase development project

Nuclear: ECITB Nuclear Sector collaborative practice comparison

Pilot Projects

this line this line


Brent Bravo Decommissioning

• Through the principles of collaboration, the project team size was reduced by 20%• Project was delivered within a very tight 11 month period• Base workscope delivered significantly under budget

• Additional workscopes to be included without any additional funds required.• Reduction in like for like removal preparation costs vs Delta of circa 70%.

Brent Bravo

Case Studies

https://www.ecitb.org.uk/Portals/0/Project Management/Collaboration/ECITB Case Study 1 V5.pdf? target=

this line this line


Callater – North Sea Subsea Tie-back

Through active collaboration the Apache Callater project team were able to achieve:• Fast ramp up, less than 6 weeks after award(s)• Critical items of scope ordered/completed early• A smaller team size, efficient communications, no man-marking or role duplication• 10% cost saving overall against original approved budget• A better, more effective way of working and:• Faster project delivery and start-up

Callater

https://www.ecitb.org.uk/Portals/0/Project Management/Collaboration/ECITB Case Study 2 (Apache Callater) R2 01052018.pdf? target=

this line this line


Total Alwyn Gas Flow Line• Small project to use existing

material and lines.• Toolkit used for engineering and

detailed design phases.• Closer communication and

common understanding of scope

Project Collaboration

Benchmarking and review• Toolkit compares well with

highly regulated sector.• Review supports revision 2 of

the Toolkit

Nexen Buzzard Phase 2“Nexen Buzzard Phase 2 – Field Extension - Live update from the 5th case study into the use of the Toolkit has shown that the Toolkit has helped support the business case for the setting up of a collaboration between the main drilling, well operations, subsea and topside facilities contractors with a single interface with the client. Nexen are benchmarking their collaborative behaviour against the metrics in the Toolkit and the early signs are really positive”.

this line this line


What we’ve learned…….

The opportunities for direct comparisons are rare but:

We now know it’s possible to achieve a

40% cost saving on a like for like project

We see no reason why substantial savings like this can’t be

achieved on other projects through collaborative working.

https://www.ecitb.org.uk/Project-Management/Collaboration/Project-Collaboration-Toolkit

Last M

odifie

d 1

0/1

/2018 2

3:3

4 W

. Euro

pe S

tandard

Tim

eP

rinte

d

McKinsey & Company

McKinsey: Productivity and digitization are correlated – and construction is at the low end

1 Based on a set of metrics to assess digitization of assets (8 metrics), usage (11 metrics), and labor (8 metrics) 2 Compound annual growth rate,

3 Based on data of top 20 E&C companies by market value globally

Digitization (2015 or latest) vs. Productivity of US industries, %

90

15

3.2

40

3.8

35

95

30

25

20

10

5

04.03.02.01.00-1.0 4.2 4.40.2 3.4 4.6-1.6 -0.2-0.4-1.2 -0.6 0.4-1.4 -0.8 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.6

Productivity growth 2005’-14, CAGR2, %

Digitization index1 ,%

ICT sector

Media

Finance and insurance

Construction

Utilities

Professional and business services

Chemicals and pharmaceuticals

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting

MiningOil and gas

SOURCE: BEA; BLS; US Census; IDC; Gartner; McKinsey social technology survey; McKinsey payments map; Livechat customer satisfaction report; Appbrian; US contact center decision –

makers guide; eMarketer; Bluew olf; Computer Economics; industry expert interviews; McKinsey global institute analysis, Capital IQ, Gartner

IT key metrics data 2012

Last M

odifie

d 1

0/1

/2018 2

3:3

4 W

. Euro

pe S

tandard

Tim

eP

rinte

d

McKinsey & Company

In 2017 McKinsey mapped the construction technology landscape

uncovering 3 clusters of innovation …

~1,000 firms in the construction phase

Construction

Back Office

Pre-

constructionScheduling

Document

Mgmt

Matl’s

Mgmt

Design

Mgmt.

Performance

Management

Contract

Management

Ops &

Mgmt.

Safety

Equip.

Mgmt

Field

Productivity

Back-office and

adjacencies cluster

Digital collaboration cluster

On-site execution cluster

Quality

Control

2017

1000

3

$10B

North America

Firms

Clusters

Investment

Geo center

of gravity 70%

CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Last M

odifie

d 1

0/1

/2018 2

3:3

4 W

. Euro

pe S

tandard

Tim

eP

rinte

d

McKinsey & Company

~2,400 firms across the full project lifecycle

A year later, the ecosystem looked very different

with exciting movement Back-office Digital CollaborationOn-site Execution

Drone Enabled

Yard Inspection

Off-site Fabrication

Value Engineering

Productivity Management

Design Simulation

Virtual learning

3D Printing

Machine Learning

Deep Learning

Equipment Management

Portfolio Planning and Management

Risk Management

Design Management

Process Simulation

Testing and Training

Robotics/Automation

Predictive Assessment Performance Equipment Marketplace

Constructions Materials Marketplace

Labor and Professional Marketplace

Bidding Process

Contract Management

Manpower Optimization

Compliance

Materials Management

Real-time Monitoring

and control

Progress Tracking and

Performance DashboardsQuality

Control

Resource

PlanningEstimating

CRMCapital Financing

Project Scheduling

3D Modeling

Laser Scanning

Document

Management

BIM

2018

2400

Constellations

$18B

North America

Firms

Clusters

Investment

Geo center

of gravity 85%

CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Operating System 2.0Creating a new business model for capital projects

Stephen P. Mulva, Ph.D.

Director, CII

London, England (UK)April 2019

Industry Platform

• Modern business is confronted with:

– Systems (legacy models and MIS)

– Enabling technologies (Blockchain)

– Point solutions (applications)

– Platforms (Android, AWS, etc.)

• No dominant single information platform for projects exists for the

capital projects industry

• OS2 is “creating a new platform for a healthy capital projects industry

that fosters organic growth”

Sv

S

S

v

v

v

v

v S

S

Fragmentation and complexity with larger projects

OWNER

Sv S Sv

v

1960s($10s M)

OWNER

S

v

S

S

v

v

1990s($100s M)

GCENG.

v

v

v S

S

OWNER

TODAY($1000s M)

GCENG.

S

S

S

S

OFF-

SITE

FAB.

S

S

ENG.

ENG.

GC

GC

BANK BANK

v

vv

OFF-

SITE

FAB.

SS

S

S

SS

BANK BANK

S

BANK BANK

S

S

S vSubcontractor Vendor / Supplier

Industry history of delivery systems (“platforms”)

1950 1960 1970 20202010200019901980 2030

D/B/B

D/B

IPD

I2PD

OS2

OS2 business model (vs. OS1)

vs.

Capital Markets

Owners

EPC / CM

Subcontractors

Labor

Distributors

Vendors / Suppliers

Manufacturers

Raw Materials Companies

Banks

(Owners, Private Equity, Bonds, MLP’s, Syndicates)

Commercial Finance Integrator (IT) Tax

(Open Source, Cloud-Enabled Thin Platform)

(40% Transactional Cost)

(4% Transactional Cost)

Main sources of transactional waste

Suppliers

Distributors

Vendors

Subcontractors

EPCs / GCs

End Users

Layer-upon-

Layer of

Additional

Cost

Raw Materials

Aerospace Platform case study

• B787 Development Cost: From $10B to $6B (-40%)

• B787 Development Time: From 6 Years to 4 Years (-33%)

supports

demands

Suppliers

50 Tier 1 Suppliers

Engineering Engineering

Progression

Ecosystem

Fabrication

Fabrication

Construction

AssemblyPO’sHIGH Transaction Costs LOW Transaction Costs

1998 20382018

$100

M

$200

M

$300

M

$400

M

Cost impact (OS2 will mitigate escalating costs)

$500

M

$600

M

Nominal $100M

Heavy Industrial

Project

Data Averaged Across

Multiple Capital Projects

(1998 Baseline,

adjusted for inflation)$222 M

$568 M

$100M

OS2

projected

35%

Analysis performed by CII Performance Improvement Group (March 2013)

* Each project was normalized to $250M

Schedule impact (EPC vs. PEpC vs. OS2)

100% FEP complete PRIOR to PROCUREMENT start (n = 97)

Weeks 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225

FEP 62 weeks

Design 91 weeks

Procurement 92 weeks

Construction 93 weeks

Start-up 25 weeks

LESS THAN 100% FEP complete PRIOR to PROCUREMENT start (n = 53)

Weeks 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225

FEP 76 weeks

Design 85 weeks

Procurement 102 weeks

Construction 78 weeks

Start-up 22 weeks

PrairieDog Platform via OS2 Delivery Model (projected)

Weeks 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225

Agile Planning 113 weeks

Concurrent Design* 70 weeks

Materials & Manuf. 82 weeks

Fabr. & Assembly 40 weeks

Start-up 92 weeks

* Concurrent, Supplier-Led Design (Reuse ~70%; Custom ~30%)

Overall 225 Weeks

EPC

PEpC

OS2

Overall 113 Weeks

Overall 190 Weeks

35 Weeks (16%)

112 Weeks (50%)

Research and Development (lead entities)

RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT

(OS2 Platform)

Getting involved in OS2

Raising $22 Million for R&D

Involvement directly or through industry groups

Research and DevelopmentResearch & Development Thrust Area PRIORITY

Finance Technology Process People

1 Leasing Model 1

2 Equity Participation in Asset Development 1

3 Depreciation / Tax Advantages 1

4 New Accounting Methods 1

5 Cloud-Enabled Thin Platform 2

6 Optimal / Real-time Partner Selection 2

7 Risk, Insurance, Surety, Bonding 3

8 Supply Chain Rationalization 3

9 Sourcing Globally / Buying / Transfer Pricing 3

10 Contract Simplification 3

11 Work Force of the Future, HR, Training, Safety, Skills,

Qualifications4

12 Flexible Approach Capital Markets / Investment 5

13 New Credit Facilities 5

14 Asset Crowdsourcing (Different Owner Models) 5

15 Agile Planning & Generative Design 6

16 Design Modularization & Re-Use / Process Simplification 6

17 Modular Production Methods / Miniaturization 6

UT Industry Affiliates Program

IAP Benefit

Platinum

USD $500k

Annually

Gold

USD $250k

Annually

Silver

USD $100k

Annually

Bronze

USD $35k

Annually

Lead a Research Team Yes No No No

Embed 1 Employee at IAP Yes Yes No No

IAP Advisory Board Yes Yes Yes No

Attend Annual IAP Meetings Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bronze Level Included for CII’s Global Affiliates

Industry groups and companies supporting OS2

“By the industry,

for the industry”

OS2 Consortiums OS2 Companies

1 AACE 1 Air Products & Chemicals 28 General Motors 56 Owens Corning

2 ABC 2 Alberici 29 Gray Construction 57 Petronas

3 AGC 3 Andeavor 30 Graycor Industrial 58 Pillsbury Law

4 AIA 4 Autodesk 31 Fluor 59 Procter & Gamble

5 BRE 5 Baker Concrete 32 Hargrove 60 Pioneer

6 CII 6 Barton Malow 33 Haskell 61 Praxair

7 COAA 7 BASF 34 Hatch 62 PTAG

8 CURT 8 Bechtel 35 Hexagon 63 Rockefeller Group

9 ECC 9 Bentley 36 Honeywell 64 Roeslein

10 ECI / CE (EU) 10 BHP 37 IBM 65 Rosendin Electric

11 ECRI 11 Black & Veatch 38 InEight 66 SABIC

12 ECITB (UK) 12 BMWC Constructors 39 Intelliwave 67 Saudi Aramco

13 EDRC (RSK) 13 BP 40 ISC 68 Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr

14 IMPACT 14 Brasfield & Gorrie 41 Jacobs 69 SBM Offshore

15 LCI 15 Brick & Mortar Ventures 42 Johns Manville 70 Shell

16 NAC 16 Brock 43 Kajima 71 Skanska

17 NCCER 17 Burns & McDonnell 44 KBR 72 Southern Company

18 Pankow Foundation 18 Cenovus 45 Kiewit 73 Suncor

19 PPI 19 Cianbro 46 LyondellBasell 74 Stevens Engineering

20 Project Norway 20 Concord Technologies 47 Mammoet Canada Western 75 Taft Stettinius & Hollister

21 RAPID (DoE/AIChE) 21 Day & Zimmerman 48 Matrix Service Co. 76 Tecnimont SpA

22 Dow 49 McKinsey 77 Tradesmen International

23 Duke Energy 50 Metrolinx 78 United Group Services

24 DuPont 51 MetroPower 79 United Rentals

25 Enbridge 52 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 80 Victaulic

26 ExxonMobil 53 Odebrecht 81 Wood

27 General Electric 54 Oneok 82 WorleyParsons

55 Oracle 83 Zurich

Committed organizations (start April 2019)

• Committed and/or Paid:

– CII

– COAA

– CURT

– ExxonMobil

– NCCER

– Suncor

• Final stages of Commitment and

Payment:

– BHP Billiton

– Cenovus

– Petronas

– SABIC

– Shell

this line this line


John Fotherby, ECI Chairman

Don Ward, ECI Chief Executive

Stephen Mulva, CII Director

T: +44 (0)3330 430 643

E: [email protected]

W: www.eci-online.org

Contact us

mailto:[email protected]

this line this line


this line this line


Not-for-profit best practice and

knowledge transfer organisation,

with secretariat provided by BRE group

A platform for industry improvement to

deliver better value for clients, industry and

users through collaborative working

A national, regional, local and

international movement

About us

this line this line


The movement

this line this line


Our chairs

Mark FarmerFounding Director, Cast

Consultancy

Author, Modernise or

Die, the independent

Review of the UK

Construction Labour

Model, CLC, 2016

David WhysallManaging Director, Infrastructure, Turner & Townsend

G4C Chair 2008-2010

Phil WilbrahamDirector of Expansion, Heathrow Airport Ltd

Infrastructure Clients Group, Chair ‘Project 13’ Capable Owner workstream

Don WardChief Executive, Constructing Excellence

this line this line


G4C national co-chairs

Caroline KeyCITB, shared

apprenticeship

scheme co-

ordinator

Robin LapishHS2, supply chain manager, rolling stock

this line this line


Positively disrupting the industry delivery

processes to transform performance

Our mission

this line this line


Superior outcomes from new delivery models featuring:

A client-led transformation by procuring for

outcomes and value

Increased standardisation and pre-

manufactured content

Digitally enabled integrated teams

working collaboratively with long-term relationships

and aligned commercial arrangements

Our vision

this line this line


Strategies

Performance measurement

Showcasing and demonstration

Connecting through networks

Leadership & Influence

this line this line


Recent Outputs

this line this line


Data at the heart of Constructing Excellence

Over 20 years of performance

measurement expertise

through construction KPIs

Benchmarking & KPI portal

this line this line


G4C Future Leader

Irina Korneychuk, FaulknerBrowns

Integration & Collaborative Working

Dudley College Advance 11 Alliance

People Development

The Griffiths Skills Academy

Preservation and Rejuvenation

Your New Town Hall, Lambeth

Value

Hartlepool Centre for

Independent Living

SME of the Year

Wynne Construction

Client of the Year

Yorkshire Water

Award winners 2018

Sustainability

Ysgol Rhyd y Llan

Innovation

Smart M&E Plug & Play for Offsite

Digital Construction

M-Sparc

Health, Safety and Wellbeing

Seymour Civil Engineering

(Contractors) Ltd

Offsite Project of the Year

A14 – Pre-Cast Solution for the River

Great Ouse Viaduct Skanska.

Civils Project of the Year

Pen y Cymoedd Wind Energy Project

Building Project of the Year

The Christie Proton Beam Centre

this line this line


Digital Performance

Measurement

Offsite,

Manufacturing &

Technology

Procurement- Social Value

- Funding, Finance &

Insurance

- Responsible Sourcing

National Theme Groups 2019

this line this line


Sector Groups 2019

Engineering Construction

Nuclear

this line this line


• Factory visits – Tata Steel, Stewart Milne, Vision Modular, Fusion Build in partnership with Cogent

• Centre visits – BRE, AMRC, MTC

• CE conference outputs – will traditional methods of construction become obsolete?

• Response to House of Lords Inquiry on Offsite Manufacture for Construction

• Offsite category added to CE Awards

• Response to IPA consultation on a new approach to building

Offsite Manufacturing &

Technology Group Activities

this line this line


Client-led – clients need to lead this change through the formation of

delivery models and subsequent procurement activities that enable the

transition. Government departments and major public sector

infrastructure programmes should take a leadership role.

Procurement – the approach and process of procuring assets needs to

fundamentally change to accommodate a platform-based approach.

Consistency – the industry needs a consistent approach from

government at all levels.

Pipeline – to unlock investment industry needs a robust and accurate

pipeline of projects.

Key recommendations from IPA

Consultation

this line this line


Collaboration – industry and government clients need to find

commercial mechanisms that enable long-term relationships and deep

collaboration based on trust.

Whole life value – government procurers must look beyond capital

expenditure to take a whole life view of the asset and work with the

industry to deliver and share value across the life of the asset.

Manufacturing – the platform approach should not be about moving

traditional construction processes from sites to factories, the platform

approach should learn from and fully embrace manufacturing

approaches and technologies.

Key points from IPA consultation

this line this line


CE Members Steering Group 2019: 11 June, 8 October

CE Member Forums 2019: 4 June, 11 September

ECI Members Forum 2019: October TBC

CE National Awards 2019: 8 November

CE Annual Conference 2019: TBC December

G4C Conference: 18 June, Leeds

Nuclear: 2 May

Procurement: June

Performance Measurement: 10 April

Digital: 22 May, 25 September, 4 December

Leaders Breakfasts: 9 May, 25 September, 7 November

Forthcoming meetings and events 2019

building a better world togethertogether

Industry 4.0 in oil and gas - Constructing Excellenceconstructingexcellence.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/... · this line this line No text beyond No text beyond Finance - create a demonstrable

Documents