Engineering Deliverables: Get It Right the First Time
Publication No
RS320-1
Type
Research & Development Product
Publication Date
Dec 01, 2016
Pages
25
Research Team
RT-320
DOCUMENT DETAILS
Abstract
Key Findings
Filters & Tags
Abstract
Identifying these challenges as significant opportunities for project advancement, the Construction Industry Institute (CII) chartered Research Team 320 (RT-320), Definition and Measurement of Engineering/Design Deliverable Quality, to develop a uniform definition and method of measurement for engineering/design deliverable quality, usable by project owners, project managers, project quality managers, and contractor design managers and discipline leads. RT-320 defined high-quality design deliverables as complete, correct, and timely.
Through a survey of experienced design professionals, the team identified 11 common detailed design deliverables that are often suffer from quality problems. By focusing on these 11 deliverables, the team gained a better understanding of common and significant deliverable defects, the impacts of these defects, and defect causal factors.
Armed with this information, RT-320 identified leading indicator metrics that can warn of defect-prone deliverables. Concurrently, the team used published literature, corporate tools, knowledge of deliverable defects, and team experience to formulate a completeness checklist for each of the 11 problematic deliverables. To enable proactive design quality actions by project teams, these findings were integrated into two tools that assess design deliverable quality and completeness throughout detailed design, beginning with Front End Engineering Design (FEED) validation and continuing through issued-for-construction:
- The Design Deliverable Quality Assessment (DDQA) tool identifies threats to deliverable quality by focusing on leading indicators.
- The Completeness of Design Deliverable Checklist (CDDC) tool provides a method for consistent measurement of deliverable completeness.
Key Findings
Based on prior published literature, RT-320 defined design deliverable quality in terms of their completeness, correctness, and timeliness.
RT-320 surveyed industry to identify the most problematic deliverables in terms of quality (N=67). The RT found similarities in the relative frequency of design quality problems encountered by owners (X-axis value) and contractors (Y-axis value).
| No. | Deliverable |
| 1 | FEED Validation Deliverables |
| 2 | Level 3 Baseline Schedule |
| 3 | Constructability Inputs |
| 4 | P&IDs |
| 5 | Equipment Specifications & Data Sheets |
| 6 | Maintainability Inputs |
| 7 | Vendor Data |
| 8 | 3D Model & Clash Detection |
| 9 | Piping Routing & Isometrics |
| 10 | Nozzles, Ladders, & Platforms for Towers/Vessels/Tanks |
| 11 | Misc. Pipe Support Drawings |
From the scatter plot shown in Key Finding #2, RT-320 concluded that deliverables are “problematic” if quality problem frequency is between “Sometimes (3.0)” and “Too Often (5.0).”
RT-320 identified the recommended timing for application of the deliverable completeness checklist.
Filters & Tags
Knowledge Area
Best Practice
Project Phase
Project Function
Industry Group
Research Topic
Definition and Measurement of Engineering/Design Deliverable Quality
Keywords
Problematic deliverables,
Deliverable completeness,
Defect analysis,
Engineering deliverable quality,
Deliverable correctness,
Defect impacts,
Design deliverable quality,
Deliverable timeliness,
Defect causal factor,
Engineering quality,
Deliverable defects,
Leading indicators,
Design quality,
Engineering/Design defects,
Lagging indicators,
rt320
