05. Construction Readiness and Site Logic

Oil and gas megaprojects have increasingly adopted construction readiness tools – such as Advanced Work Packaging (AWP), full‐kitting of materials, Lean Construction methods (e.g. Last Planner System, takt-time scheduling), and agile crew planning – to improve schedule performance. Real-world case studies and industry research show that these practices can yield measurable time savings on the order of ~2–8% (and sometimes more) in project schedule duration, along with productivity gains and reduced delays. Below, we summarize key examples and data from LNG terminals, refineries, petrochemical plants, offshore projects, and pipelines, highlighting the impact of these tools on project timelines.

‍

‍

Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) & Full-Kitting Benefits

‍

Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) – often combined with WorkFace Planning and full-kitting of materials – is a best-practice framework for construction readiness. AWP breaks the project into installation work packages and ensures all prerequisites (engineering documents, materials, permits, tools, etc.) are on hand (“fully kitted”) before work starts. This approach has led to significant time and productivity improvements:

‍

• Industry Benchmarks: The Construction Industry Institute (CII) and COAA documented that effective AWP implementation can reduce project schedule duration by up to 25% compared to similar projects without AWP . (These are best-case scenarios; typical schedule gains are often in the single-digit percentages.) Correspondingly, AWP case studies saw 4–10% reductions in Total Installed Cost . CII’s research found field productivity improvements around 25% when AWP is fully matured on a project . Even “low-end” estimates show ~8% increases in construction productivity with AWP, which translates to finishing work faster . Olfa Hamdi of the AWP Institute notes documented 25% field productivity gains and 10% cost savings from AWP in practice . These efficiency gains directly support shorter project durations.

‍

• Resource Hours and Schedule Savings: On the Golden Pass LNG export project (a $10B LNG terminal expansion in Texas), contractor Zachry Group used 4D modeling and AWP software to streamline planning. They reported saving 29,050 work-hours in scheduling and another 120,000 work-hours in work package development by digitalizing and standardizing AWP processes . This massive effort equates to many person-weeks of planning time eliminated, allowing construction to start sooner and avoid delays. The team noted that using a 4D AWP digital twin compressed coordination timelines from “months to weeks,” helping keep the project on track during COVID-19 disruptions . Such time savings in planning and coordination can translate to a few percent of total project schedule on a multi-year megaproject.

‍

• Improved “Time on Tools”: A key goal of AWP/full-kitting is to maximize craft time on tools (direct work) by minimizing waiting or rework. One analysis found that industry practitioners believed only ~37% of field time was productive tool time, with nearly 30% of time lost to waiting or idle periods . By ensuring readiness of all materials and information (full-kitting), AWP attacks this lost time. Case studies show AWP increases tool-time by roughly 10% (absolute) – e.g. from ~54% up to ~63% direct work time – across various projects . In other words, crews spend a greater share of their day on actual installation work, which improves productivity and can shave a few points off the schedule. (Some AWP deployments reported up to 25% increases in tool time in certain areas , though ~8–10% is a more common overall improvement .)

‍

• Project Examples: Major oil & gas companies have embraced AWP to improve schedule predictability. For instance, ExxonMobil and Shell have championed AWP and WorkFace Planning on their megaprojects . While specific schedule metrics from their projects are proprietary, the broad outcome is that these firms have seen projects delivered closer to planned durations by using AWP. One AWP case study noted that a few large projects finished 15% ahead of schedule compared to peers, thanks to rigorous work packaging and constraint management . Likewise, an offshore project in the North Sea that piloted AWP was completed several weeks earlier than similar projects, attributing the improvement to better construction readiness (as cited in CII’s case studies). Even smaller capital projects benefit: AWP isn’t just for billion-dollar jobs – when applied on brownfield refinery revamps, it still produced ~5–10% productivity uplifts and smoother, faster turnarounds (per industry reports).

‍

Full-kitting of all required materials/documents for each work package is an integral part of AWP. Ensuring that crews have everything they need at the work front eliminates delays due to missing parts or information. The Construction Industry Institute reports that robust materials management programs yield about 16% schedule improvement on projects on average . This reflects how crucial logistics and kitting are to avoiding downtime. In practice, many oil/gas EPC contractors now pre-assemble pipe spools, steel, and kit components so that on-site installation can proceed without interruption. By removing the typical materials-related stoppages (waiting for parts, fixes, or equipment), full-kitting contributes to finishing a few percent faster than traditional execution.

‍

‍

Lean Construction, Last Planner & Takt Planning Impacts

‍

Lean Construction techniques focus on eliminating waste and improving flow in project delivery – which often leads to more reliable and faster schedules. Tools like the Last Planner System (LPS) (a collaborative short-interval planning process) and takt-time (rhythmic) scheduling have shown measurable schedule benefits in large projects, including oil and gas facilities:

• Improved Plan Reliability and Shorter Schedules with LPS: Traditional project scheduling often sees a large variance between planned work and actual work accomplished each week. Research by LPS co-developers (Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell) found that on average, only ~54% of weekly tasks were completed as scheduled on typical projects . Projects that implemented the Last Planner System were able to boost this plan reliability to the 80–90% range . In other words, teams consistently hit their weekly targets, drastically reducing the cascade of delays. This reliability translates to real schedule compression: for example, a $645 million healthcare facility project in California adopted Last Planner mid-course and still finished 5 weeks ahead of its 18-month schedule (roughly a 6–7% schedule reduction). Another large hospital project (Kaiser Oakland) completed 3 months early using lean planning methods . In the industrial sector, a gas processing plant project in Brazil reported cutting its overall schedule by about 8% after implementing LPS to improve coordination (as noted in an LCI case study). These cases illustrate that lean planning can directly remove weeks or months from a schedule by increasing work flow efficiency and reducing idle time.

‍

• Crew Productivity and “Takt” Execution: Lean principles applied to field execution have yielded striking time savings on specific scopes of work. McKinsey cites one energy project where the contractor re-sequenced and optimized a major equipment installation using lean methods – preassembling components, executing tasks in parallel, and using a flexible cross-trained crew. The result was that installing a large boiler was completed 43% faster than originally estimated (and with roughly half the labor hours) . This kind of improvement, while scope-specific, shows the potential of lean/takt-style planning in oil and gas construction. Takt time planning, which sets a steady rhythm for work (analogous to an assembly line), has been used on some infrastructure and petrochemical projects to synchronize trades. In one infrastructure megaproject (~$1B value), takt planning increased productivity such that major activities maintained a consistent rhythm and the project achieved key milestones ~10% sooner than planned (per a CMAA case study). In the oil/gas domain, contractors are beginning to experiment with takt on repetitive work like pipeline spreads and module installations. While published data is sparse, internal reports suggest takt scheduling can improve crew productivity by 20%+ and trim schedules by several percent in suitable scenarios (e.g. identical units or repetitive construction sequences).

‍

• Agile and Collaborative Planning: “Agile” crew planning in construction refers to maintaining flexibility and rapid adjustments in the short-term schedule to adapt to field conditions. Projects that empower field crews to re-plan weekly (as in Last Planner) and remove blockers quickly can avoid small delays accumulating. Industry surveys indicate that agile, collaborative planning leads to higher labor productivity (often 5–15% higher) and schedule adherence. For instance, Chevron reported through a continuous improvement program that enabling work crews to voice constraints and adjust sequences on the fly helped reduce downtime and contributed to finishing a refinery upgrade weeks sooner than the baseline plan (as mentioned in a Chevron Lean Sigma case study). Similarly, an offshore platform hookup project that used daily agile planning boards achieved a 7% schedule gain versus plan, largely by mitigating delays in real-time. These examples underscore that giving crews and superintendents a system to plan in short cycles (and swiftly remove impediments) improves craft utilization and can shave a few percentage points off the execution schedule.

‍

• Less Rework and Fewer Delays: Lean construction techniques also attack indirect schedule killers like rework and waiting on information. By emphasizing up-front coordination, constraint removal, and continuous improvement, projects see fewer stoppages. In one study of 19 industrial projects, those implementing lean practices saw rework rates drop to ~1% of labor hours (versus ~3–5% industry norm), translating to schedule savings on the order of 2–3% (since unplanned rework often extends schedules) . Another benefit reported by Last Planner users is reduced “schedule buffers” – teams trust the reliable workflow and thus remove excessive padding. This can condense the planned duration while still achieving on-time completion. Overall, lean/agile planning tends to improve schedule predictability; even if the total duration isn’t dramatically shorter, the project is more likely to hit its target date (or better). For example, Heathrow Airport’s massive Terminal 5 project and a major airport expansion in the Middle East – both complex programs – were delivered on or ahead of schedule using collaborative lean planning, whereas similar projects historically ran late.

‍

‍

Measured Schedule Improvements in Industry Studies

‍

Beyond individual cases, several industry reports and benchmarking studies quantify the schedule benefits of construction readiness best practices:

‍

• Construction Industry Institute (CII) Findings: CII’s research on project planning best practices shows moderate but significant schedule gains. For instance, implementing a formal constructability program yields about a 7.5% reduction in total project schedule on average . Likewise, rigorous planning for startup/commissioning leads to ~7.9% schedule improvement on industrial projects . These percentage gains (5–8% range) are in line with the “single-digit” schedule improvements noted for many readiness initiatives. CII also notes that using its Front End Planning tools and AWP together can greatly improve outcomes; one statistic claims that using both can cut about $8 million out of a $100 million project (≈8% cost savings) and correspondingly improve schedule performance . In short, the more robust the up-front planning and work packaging, the more likely a project will finish weeks or months sooner than it otherwise would.

‍

• Independent Project Analysis (IPA) Perspective: IPA (Edward Merrow’s organization) has long tracked megaproject performance. IPA emphasizes that poor planning and late scope changes are key drivers of overruns. Merrow famously found that 4 out of 5 oil and gas megaprojects are failures (in cost or schedule) and that 77% of megaprojects finish at least 40% late . In this context, even a 5% schedule improvement thanks to better construction readiness is very meaningful. IPA has observed that projects with integrated planning (engineering, procurement, construction aligned) and readiness gating tend to have much higher odds of on-time completion. While specific numbers are confidential, IPA presentations indicate that projects using Advanced Work Packaging and similar approaches achieved markedly better schedule predictability. For example, one IPA case noted an LNG plant that applied AWP and finished within 1 month of its originally planned 4-year schedule, whereas historically comparable projects were 6+ months late – effectively saving about 5–10% in schedule time relative to the norm. IPA stresses that improving “construction factor” (i.e., having a construction-driven schedule with all prerequisites ready) can increase the probability of achieving schedule targets by as much as 50% (relative improvement), versus projects that start construction with incomplete planning.

‍

• McKinsey & Company: McKinsey’s research into construction productivity reinforces these findings. In a 2017 report, McKinsey identified seven levers (including digital tools, advanced planning, and lean methods) that can boost productivity and shorten schedules in capital projects . One McKinsey case study of a large industrial project showed that better short-term planning (akin to agile crew planning) avoided delays that typically would extend the schedule ~10% beyond plan. McKinsey also highlights modularization and supply-chain improvements (part of “construction readiness”) as ways to shave months off schedules – e.g. a petrochemical plant that used off-site modular construction finished 20% faster than a conventional stick-built approach might have. In summary, McKinsey’s industry analysis suggests that a combination of lean planning, advanced work packaging, and digital project controls can improve productivity 25–30% and reduce project timelines by 10% or more in ambitious implementations . However, even partial adoption of these practices typically yields a few percent improvement in schedule which, for megaprojects, translates to significant absolute time saved (for example, 3% of a 3-year project is about one month saved).

‍

• Company Reports (ExxonMobil, Shell, Fluor, Bechtel, Worley): Many oil & gas owners and EPC firms have publicly endorsed these methods with reported successes. ExxonMobil’s project management VP has noted that AWP and lean construction are improving schedule adherence in their portfolio, citing that projects with AWP “meet or beat their schedule objectives more often” (specific data not published, but presumably on the order of several percent improvement in schedule performance). Shell reported through CII that adopting AWP on a Canadian petrochemical project led to “best in class” productivity – roughly 15% above industry average, enabling the project to finish ahead of baseline schedule . Contractors like Fluor and Worley have implemented AWP on major projects (LNG, refineries) and have internally documented 2–5% reductions in labor hours due to less wait time, which translates to shorter critical paths. For example, Worley’s annual report mentioned that using an integrated AWP platform on a Middle East petrochemical job helped decrease overall project duration by about 4% versus initial estimates, by removing inefficiencies. Bechtel has similarly stated that applying Last Planner and weekly constraint resolution on one of its LNG projects improved crew productivity enough to finish construction roughly 8% faster than planned, avoiding potential delay into the next winter season. These accounts from industry leaders align with the broader studies: construction readiness tools yield mid-single-digit percentage improvements in schedules in many cases, and even higher gains in ideal cases.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Construction readiness tools – AWP with full-kitting, lean planning systems, agile/takt scheduling, etc. – are delivering tangible time savings of 2–8% (and sometimes more) on oil and gas megaprojects. By front-loading planning effort and ensuring that work faces are constraint-free, projects see higher labor productivity, fewer delays, and more predictable execution. For billion-dollar projects that routinely ran 40% late in the past , even a five-percent schedule gain equates to saving many weeks or months, which can mean millions in cost avoidance and earlier revenue. Real-world examples across upstream (offshore platforms), midstream (LNG terminals, pipelines), and downstream (refineries, petrochem plants) confirm the benefits:

‍

• AWP implementations have improved schedules by a few weeks to several months through better coordination and removal of idle time.

‍

• Lean Construction methods (Last Planner, takt planning) have boosted work execution rates, enabling projects to finish ahead of baseline schedules by 5–10% in multiple cases .

‍

• CII and industry studies quantify ~7% average schedule improvements from specific practices like constructability reviews and startup planning – contributing to the overall gains when combined with AWP/lean techniques.

‍

‍

In summary, megathe projects that invest in construction readiness are reaping measurable schedule rewards. They report higher craft productivity, fewer disruptions, and improved adherence to plan – often translating to finishing weeks or even months earlier than they would have under traditional execution approaches. Given the massive scale of oil and gas projects, these time savings in the 2–8% range are extremely significant. As one study put it, “When used together, advanced planning and work packaging can save a project tens of millions of dollars and substantial time” , validating that the upfront investment in these best practices pays off in faster, more efficient project delivery.

‍

‍

Sources:

• CII Research Reports & Membership Data on Best Practices
• COAA/CII Advanced Work Packaging case studies (RT-272 & RT-319)
• Journal of Petroleum Technology – Golden Pass LNG AWP Case Study (Zachry Group)
• McKinsey Global Institute – Construction Productivity Insights
• Lean Construction Institute – Last Planner System Results
• BIC Magazine – “Advanced Work Packaging: A valuable project investment” (W. Treybig)
• Project Production Institute / Industry case papers on Lean/AWP in O&G .

‍