Tab. 1
Completion status of the projects.
| Unit location | Month of approval | Original cost in equivalents of USD million (approx.) | Month of commissioning | Time overrun (months) | Cost overrun (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location 1 | January 2010 | 215.7 | January 2013 | Nil | Nil |
| Location 2 | January 2010 | 215.4 | January 2013 | Nil | Nil |
| Location 3 | January 2010 | 246.4 | April 2013 | 4 | Nil |
Fig. 1
Framework of our proposed three stage methodology.
Tab. 2
Analysis of schedule performance for eight delayed major work packages.
| Serial no. | Package name | Equipment supply schedule | Erection activity schedule | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latest allowable date | Actual date | Delay, in months | Latest allowable date | Actual date | Delay, in months | ||
| 1 | Primary reformer | 30 May 2012 | 21 November 2012 | 6 | 14 July 2012 | 15 November 2012 | 5 |
| 2 | Process air compressor | 28 March 2012 | 20 June 2012 | 3 | 2 October 2012 | 31 December 2012 | 3 |
| 3 | Secondary reformer | 13 April 2012 | 16 June 2012 | 2 | 29 October 2012 | 15 February 2013 | 4 |
| 4 | Cryogenic purifier | 16 April 2012 | 11 February 2012 | No delay | 29 October 2012 | 15 February 2013 | 4 |
| 5 | Refrigeration compressor | 3 April 2012 | 25 October 2012 | 6 | 29 October 2012 | 15 February 2013 | 4 |
| 6 | Electrical substation | 25 January 2012 | 3 August 2011 | No delay | 26 April 2012 | 19 September 2012 | 4 |
| 7 | Piping network | 5 March 2011 | 15 January 2011 | No delay | 3 September 2012 | 15 November 2012 | 3 |
| 8 | Insulation | 27 August 2011 | 15 December 2011 | 4 | 29 October 2012 | 24 February 2013 | 4 |
Tab. 3
Setting thresholds for causal and observed variables.
| Serial no. | Variable | Scale | Setting thresholds and variable values |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fund management (Funds) | Dichotomous | ‘0’ for ineffective fund management resulting in delays (material procurement and labour sourcing) ‘1’ for effective fund management resulting in no delays (material procurement and labour sourcing) |
| 2 | Labour productivity (Labour) | Dichotomous | ‘0’ for low labour productivity resulting in either rework or delay in activity completion time ‘1’ for labour productivity in cases of schedule recovery |
| 3 | Activity sequencing (ActSeq) | Trichotomous | ‘0’ for no delay in equipment supply but delay in erection activities, resulting in overall delay in completing the work package ‘1’ for either of the following cases: (a) No delay in either equipment supply or erection activities, resulting in overall work package completion on time (b) Delay in equipment supply, but no delay in erection activities, resulting in delay for completing work package equalling the delay in equipment supply only. ‘2’ for recovering schedule slippage during erection in those cases where equipment supply was delayed |
| 4 | Supply sequencing (SupSeq) | Trichotomous | ‘0’ for delay in equipment supply for period equal to or more than the overall project delay of 4 months ‘1’ for delay in equipment supply for period less than the overall project delay of 4 months ‘2’ for no delay in equipment supply |
| 5 | Work package schedule performance (observed variable) | Dichotomous | ‘0’ for delay in package completion ‘1’ for no delay in package completion |
Tab. 4
Interpretive data table developed using case data and thresholds.
| Package ID | Package name | Fund management | Labour productivity | Activity sequencing | Supply sequencing | Observed variable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Primary reformer | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | Secondary reformer | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | Process air compressor | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | Cryogenic purifier | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| 5 | Refrigeration compressor | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | HVAC | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 7 | Gasification plant | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 8 | Electrical substation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 9 | Piping network | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 10 | Insulation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | Automation (E&I) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
[i] Note: E&I, electrical and instrumentation; HVAC, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
Tab. 5
Multi-value truth table with contradictions.
| Fund management | Labour productivity | Activity sequencing | Supply sequencing | Observed variable | Package names |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Primary reformer, Refrigeration compressor |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Secondary reformer |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Process air compressor |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | C | Cryogenic purifier, HVAC, Gasification plant, Automation (E&I) |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | Electrical substation and Piping network |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Insulation |
Tab. 6
Contradiction-free multi-value truth table.
| Fund management | Labour productivity | Activity sequencing | Supply sequencing | Technology stabilisation | Observed variable | Package names |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Primary reformer, Refrigeration compressor |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Secondary reformer |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Process air compressor |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Cryogenic purifier |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | HVAC, Gasification plant, Automation (E&I) |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | Electrical substation, Piping network |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Insulation |
Fig. 2
Illustrative Boolean minimisation process.
Tab. 7
Results of Boolean minimisation (using Tosmana software, version 1.302).
| Explain observed variable | Terms | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | ActSeq{0,2} + | SupSeq{0,1} + | Techstab{0} |
| (Primary reformer, Refrigeration compressor + Electrical substation, Piping network) | (Primary reformer, Refrigeration compressor + Secondary reformer + Process air compressor + Insulation) | (Cryogenic purifier) | |
| 1 | ActSeq{1}*SupSeq{2}*Techstab{1} | ||
| (HVAC, Gasification plant, Automation E&I) | |||
| 0 and 1 | Funds{0,1} | ||
| (Primary reformer, Refrigeration compressor + Secondary reformer + Process air compressor + Cryogenic purifier + HVAC, Gasification plant, Automation E&I + Electrical substation, Piping network + Insulation) | |||
[i] Note: {value} indicates variable values in the set; + denotes Boolean OR; * denotes Boolean AND
Tab. 8
Comparison between the two EPC contractors.
| Comparison item | EPC contractor at Locations 1 and 2 | EPC contractor at Location 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Country experience | Large Indian conglomerate having many decades of country experience and multiple ongoing projects in the country at any point in time | Reputed international conglomerate with extensive global experience but limited Indian experience |
| Basic and detailed engineering capability | Good, worked on Haldor Topsoe technology prevalent in India | Excellent, vast international experience on KBR technology |
| Contract management systems | Robust systems, extensive experience in handling Indian public sector enterprises and domestic contractors | Good systems, relatively less experienced in Indian conditions |
| Project management systems | Robust project management systems, fine-tuned to the country context | Robust and conventional project management systems |
| Approach to resource management | Strength of available in-house erection staff and resources, lesser dependency on erection subcontractors | More dependent upon erection subcontractors |