Interface Management Model for Mega Capital Projects

Abstract

Many construction projects are becoming more complex and large in scale due to advances in technology and operations. These projects involve many stakeholders, with different geographical locations and working cultures, collaborating with one another throughout the project life cycle. Industry leaders believe that interface management systems can be created to improve alignment between stakeholders and reduce project issues and conflicts. However, identifying interfaces and monitoring interface states are significant challenges that creates a continues struggle for owners. Interfaces are generally considered as the links between different construction elements, stakeholders and project scopes. Poor management of interfaces may result in deficiencies in the project cost, time, and quality during the project life cycle execution, or may result in failures after the project has been delivered. Therefore, having systematic interface management to effectively handle the interfaces through the project life cycle is critical to project performance. In this paper, a process based approach is proposed for interface management of mega capital projects, starting with the definition and taxonomy of interfaces. Then, the main steps for implementing an Interface Management System (IMS) are introduced: (1) interface identification, (2) documentation, (3) issuing, (4) communication, and (5) closing.

Full text

Interface Management Model for Mega Capital Projects
Samin Shokri1, Mahdi Safa2, Carl T. Haas3, Ralph C.G. Haas4, Kelly Maloney5,
Sandra MacGillivray6
1 PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada; phone 519-888-4567 x 33929; fax 519-888-4300;
email:sshokri@uwaterloo.ca
2 PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada; phone 519-888-4567 x 33929; fax 519-888-4300;
email:msafa@uwaterloo.ca
3 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada; phone 519-888-4567 x 35492; fax 519-888-4300;
email:chaas@uwaterloo.ca
4 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada; phone 519-888-4567 x 32176; fax 519-888-4300;
email: haas@uwaterloo.ca
5 Product Manager, Coreworx Inc., Waterloo, ON, Canada; phone 519-772- 3181
x 4012; email: KMaloney@coreworx.com
6 VP Product Manager, Coreworx Inc., Waterloo, ON, Canada; phone 519-772-
3301; email: SMacGillivray@coreworx.com
ABSTRACT
Many construction projects are becoming more complex and large in scale due
to advances in technology and operations. These projects involve many stakeholders,
with different geographical locations and working cultures, collaborating with one
another throughout the project life cycle. Industry leaders believe that interface
management systems can be created to improve alignment between stakeholders and
reduce project issues and conflicts. However, identifying interfaces and monitoring
interface states are significant challenges that creates a continues struggle for owners.
Interfaces are generally considered as the links between different construction
elements, stakeholders and project scopes. Poor management of interfaces may result
in deficiencies in the project cost, time, and quality during the project life cycle
execution, or may result in failures after the project has been delivered. Therefore,
having systematic interface management to effectively handle the interfaces through
the project life cycle is critical to project performance. In this paper, a process based
approach is proposed for interface management of mega capital projects, starting with
the definition and taxonomy of interfaces. Then, the main steps for implementing an
Interface Management System (IMS) are introduced: (1) interface identification, (2)
documentation, (3) issuing, (4) communication, and (5) closing.
INTRODUCTION
The importance of industrial facilities to our economic prosperity and quality
of life is a well-accepted fact. These facilities are becoming more complex and larger
in scale due to advances in technology and operations. Furthermore, project processes
are increasingly being delivered remotely, involving collaboration of several mega
447Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012

contractors linked via the internet. “Therefore, effective planning, designing,
constructing, operating and maintaining these facilities requires good management
and sound technological foundation” (Shokri et al. 2011). In response to this change,
electronic product and process management systems (EPPMS) have emerged to
facilitate execution of mega projects by linking project stakeholders over a range of
distances via the internet and system servers, formalizing and automating work
processes, and automating the document management system. An important aspect of
EPPMS is ability to manage the interfaces between stakeholders, project phases, and
construction elements. Interface Management (IM), as an effective method in
recognizing and communicating interfaces between project parties and construction
components, is an essential tool in successful execution.
Industry leaders in mega construction projects believe that IM will improve
alignment between parties and reduce project issues and conflicts. Through effective
IM, project parties not only get a better understanding of the objectives, but also gain
better insight into their responsibilities in achieving those goals. Although the
importance of IM is becoming more widely accepted in today’s construction, owners
still debate on how to implement IM. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to
develop a systematic approach for IM in mega construction projects, which leads to
delivering the project within specified cost and time constraints.
BACKGROUND
Interface Management in Construction
“The peculiarities of building construction — poorly controlled building
environment, complexity of construction, temporary multi-organization, and
subcontracting and interdisciplinary nature — increase the number and types of
interfaces in a project, and cause various interface issues” (Chen et al., 2006). IM is
claimed to be “an effective tool in proactive avoidance or mitigation of any project
issues, including design conflicts, installation clashes, new technology application,
regulatory challenges, and contract claims, and would enhance the successful delivery
of megaprojects” (Nooteboom, 2004, INTEC engineering report).
“Interfaces are defined as the contact point between relatively autonomous
organizations which are interdependent and interacting to achieve some larger system
objectives” (Wren, 1967). In general, interfaces are considered either internal (within
a single contract or scope of work) or external (between contracts or scopes of work)
(Chen et al., 2007; Lin, 2009). However, there is a significant amount of interactions
between each party directly involved in the project and the other independent entities
outside of the project, including government, local infrastructure systems, local and
international organizations. To address all types of interfaces, the project interfaces
are analyzed at three levels (Collins et al., 2010):
• Inter-project Interface: Interfaces between different parties directly
involved in project planning and execution.
• Intra-project Interface: Interfaces within the organization of each
independent party, involved in a project.
• Extra-project Interface: Interfaces between the project parties and other
parties/organizations which are not directly involved in project execution.
(e.g. permits from government or environmental organizations.)
448Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012

Interfaces are further classified into different categories to serve specific
purposes. These categories are included but not limited to physical, contractual,
organizational, functional, resources, and social interfaces (Pavitt and Gibb, 2003;
Chen et al., 2007; Crumrine et al, 2005).
IM is considered as the process of managing communications, responsibilities
and coordination of project parties, phases, or physical entities which are
interdependent. IM is an ongoing process and should be considered dynamic
throughout the life of project with the goal of maintaining the balance between scope,
time, cost, quality, and resources (Crumrine et al, 2005). The reason is that as a
system grows, its interfaces change; new relationships are established and new
interfaces are generated (Wren, 1967).
In construction, IM is applied in different areas to improve the project
performance by increasing alignment between project parties. Examples of IM
applications in construction are creating effective and timely communication between
an MAC (Main Automation Contractor) and an MEC (Main Electrical Contractor)
(Calgar and Connolly, 2007), improving project safety and reducing the effect of
hazardous processes (Kelly and Berger, 2006), defining the human dynamics and
communication strategies in agile project management (Chen et al., 2007), and
establishing error-free communication between architecture, mechanical and
electronic engineering, and air conditioning system engineering (Siao et al., 2011).
A generic approach is introduced here for IM, which includes four steps (Lin,
2009; Calgar and Connolly, 2007; Pavitt and Gibb, 2003):
• Interface Finding and Identifying: Checking for new or existing interfaces.
• Interface Communicating: Requesting, responding and tracing the needed
information/tasks between inter-related parties.
• Interface Recording: Recording of information about the interface.
• Interface Closing: Closing action when the interface is reconfirmed
without further identification or tracing. (Lin, 2009)
The main issue with the current models proposed for IM is that they do not
address the interfaces of the whole project; instead, they are mainly focused on
managing the interfaces between a couple of internal departments of a project. In this
paper, an Interface Management System (IMS) is proposed as a systematic framework
for managing different levels of project interfaces, with the purpose of increasing
alignment between stakeholders and facilitating communication through formalized
workflow processes. The scope of proposed IMS is on the mega projects, because of
the numerous stakeholders and the complexity of interactions. However, the IMS is
applicable to different project types and sizes.
Barriers to Interface Management implementation
Several studies emphasized that implementing IM at the early stages of the
project will result in higher performance in terms of scope, time, and schedule
(Nooteboom, 2004; Calgar and Connolly, 2007; Chen et al., 2007). However, not all
of the conventionally executed, early IM implementation practices were successful.
Several researchers have studied the factors resulting in IM failure during planning
and execution phases (Huang et al., 2008; Crumrine et al, 2005; Lisong, 2009)
449Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012

The reasons for IM failure could be because of two factors: Know-how and
environmental (Huang et al., 2008). Know-how factors are the result of management,
experience and coordination problems. Management problems such as lack of
communication, alignment and coordination between parties, inefficient decision
making, mismanagement of responsibilities and poor definition of project scopes and
interfaces introduce inefficiencies in IM models. Furthermore, non-acquaintance of
stakeholders with the scope and definition results in inaccurate budget, schedule,
inappropriate selection of technologies, and constant changes to the project processes.
Environmental factors are imposed on a party by other project parties or
external parties, and they include contract obligations, acts-of-god, and regulations.
Incomplete contracts, unclear details in drawings, and constant changes to the design
documents result in interface issues between stakeholders. Moreover, weather
conditions, geological problems and unexpected changes in the materials supply
cause delays to the interfaces. Finally, delays are imposed on successful execution of
interfaces by the unfamiliarity of the related parties with local rules, including local
laws or regulations as well as the local government audit system (Huang et al., 2008).
A GENERALIZED INTERFACE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
IMS is defined as a systematic approach to effectively identify and handle
interfaces (especially critical ones) through the whole project lifecycle, with the
objective of facilitating the alignment process between stakeholders by defining the
interface characteristics, responsibilities of involved parties, and the need time of
deliverables. IMS framework will be executed through five main steps:
• Step 1- Interface Identification: This step includes identifying as many
interfaces as possible in the project.
• Step 2- Interface Documentation: Interface information is defined in this
step. This information includes the interface characteristics, involved
parties, deadlines, needed documents, etc. It should be mentioned that this
step is an ongoing process during the whole IMS.
• Step 3- Interface Transferring/Package issuing: When the contract has
been awarded, all the identified interfaces and their documented
information are being transferred to the appropriate parties.
• Step 4- Interface Communication: During this step, parties will start
communicating with each other through issuance of Interface
Agreements, to effectively manage the interfaces. This step will be
executed under the jurisdiction of the Interface Manager and involve all
interfacing parties.
• Step 5- Interface Closing: The interface is considered closed if all
involved parties agree on the efficiency, accuracy and completion of
communicated information/tasks and deliverables.
Roles and Responsibilities for IMS
In order to effectively manage interface points, an Interface Manager is
assigned in the organization of each contracting party. The Interface Manager is
generally a high level manager, or his/her delegate. The Interface Manager is
responsible to formally initiate the IMS process, including working with his/her team
450Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012

to identify and generate Interface Points, interface agreements, work with other
parties to ensure timely responses to requests, assign tasks to team members and to
monitor the status of all interfaces thru to closure.
In fact, Interface Managers are the contact bridge between the other team
members of contracting parties, involved in every interface point. All interface
communication goes through the interface managers of interfacing parties. In addition
to the Interface Manager at each contracting party’s organization, the owner will
assign Interface Coordinator(s) to various interface points, based on the
area/functionality/discipline and with regard to the complexity and number of
interface points of each contract package.
Elements of IMS
Several interfaces are created in a construction project because of its
complexity and the needs of various stakeholders. Since the interfacing parties may
need several pieces of information, or tasks to efficaciously handle the interface point,
in every interface point, numerous interface agreements are generated. An interface
agreement is a two-sided arrangement between interfacing parties. The interface
agreement will document the deliverables required by one party of another party, in
order to effectively handle the interface. As a result, each contract package consists of
interface agreements, coupling with several interface points. The relation between
contract package, interface points and interface agreements are illustrated in Figure 1.
IMS Framework
The IMS steps are executed automatically, via workflows in an EPPMS, and
over the internet. The owner and all contracting parties have access to internet-based
software, and their access level is based on their role in handling each interface point.
The workflow of the IMS is illustrated in Appendix 1.
Step 1: Interface Identification
To identify the interfaces, it is necessary to introduce the definition of an
interface. For the scope of this model, interfaces are considered as physical or virtual
Contract Packa
g
e
Interface Point 1
Interface Point 2
Interface Point n
Interface A
g
reement 1
Interface A
g
reement 2
Interface A
g
reement …
Interface A
g
reement 1
Interface A
g
reement 2
Interface A
g
reement …
Interface A
g
reement 1
Interface A
g
reement 2
Interface A
g
reement …
Figure 1. Relation between Contract Package, Interface Points and Interface
Agreements
.
.
.
451Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012

points. Therefore, an interface point is a meeting point (physical or virtual) between
stakeholders, systems, organizations, equipment, construction components and
people. These interface points could be created because of contractual obligation,
actual connection of two objects, or regulations. In this model, the inter-project
interfaces will be analyzed. The three levels of interfaces (Inter-, intra-, and extra-
project interface points) are illustrated in Figure 2.
Project interfaces are identified through the whole project life cycle. In fact,
interface identification is an ongoing process; however the early identification of
interfaces will lead to better understanding of potential project risks and promoting
project success. Interfaces are typically identified by a group of experts of the project,
using the design documents, work breakdown structure (WBS), contract documents,
project specification, etc (Chua and Godinot, 2006).
Step 2: Interface Documentation
Once the interface points are identified and approved by the responsible party,
the information related to each interface point must be defined. This information
includes the level of interface point (inter-, intra- and extra-project), its related
discipline/area/department and the interconnecting parties. The responsibilities of the
interconnecting parties involved in interface point execution are identified using a
RASCI matrix. RASCI stands for Responsible, Accountable, Support, Consulted and
Informed, respectively.
The description of roles for the interface execution is as follows:
• Responsible: The party responsible for the interface overall performance,
and approves the accuracy of interface point characteristics.
• Accountable: The party, who generates the interface agreement, has the
legitimate authority to approve the adequacy of the work and make the
final decision to close the agreement.
• Supportive: The party who gives support to facilitate the process
accomplishment (e.g. the party who may have to grant the other parties
access to the site).
• Consulted: The party who responds to the interface agreements and
provides the deliverables.
Intra-project interfaces
Inter-project interfaces
Extra-
p
ro
j
ect interfaces
Figure 2. Levels of Project Interfaces
452Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012

• Informed: The parties who need to know the status of the interface
agreement, whether it be a matter of courtesy or to help them better
schedule their own work or the work of others
The purpose of using RASCI matrix is reducing risk by increasing visibility
and eliminating ambiguity of the roles and responsibilities related to each interface
point identification and execution. The visibility is achieved by clear definition of
roles and responsibilities, boundaries between roles, balancing of the responsibilities
and regular controls. A sample of a RASCI chart is shown in Table 1. The left column
includes interface points, and the top row includes all the persons/parties who may be
involved in identifying interface points (here, owner is meant in a very general way,
as mega projects would likely have a consulting firm acting as the agent or
representative of the owner). The cross-sectional cell indicates the responsibility of
each party with regard to each interface point, if there is a relationship. Note that each
interface point should be assigned only one Responsible person.
Table 1. Sample of RASCI Chart
Step 3: Interface Issuing
The major portion of the information related to the interface point is gathered
during the FEP (Front End Planning) stage, and prior to contract award. When the
contracting party has been awarded the contract, all the identified interface points and
related information are transferred to that party. This includes all the interface points
for which the contracting party is responsible, accountable, consulted, or support. In
other words, the interface points, and roles of the contracting party with regard to
each interface point should be transferred to that party.
The awarding contractor will review the interface points, their description and
related information, and will approve their adequacy and accuracy. The contractor
may also identify new interface points, or may modify some of the existing interface
points. Any modifications to existing interface points, or newly identified interfaces
may require approval by the Interface Coordinator at the owner’s organization.
Step 4: Interface Communication
After the identified interfaces are transferred to the awarded parties, all
involved parties should review the identified interface points, and approve the
accuracy and sufficiency of provided information. This step can be a risk itself, and it
is necessary to assure that the involved parties are responding to this step. If new
interfaces are recognized during this stage, the Interface Manager of the responsible
party requests to add more interface points, and this request is required to be accepted
by respondent party, and approved by Interface Coordinator for issuance.
The interface communication is done through issuing Interface Agreements.
An Interface Agreement is issued by the accountable party, and the consulted party
reviews the agreement, and accepts whether he/she can provide the deliverable within
453Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012

the mentioned timeframe. He/she may also ask for more clarification or request a
change to the deadline. This process is a negotiation between parties and continues
until all involved parties are satisfied with the content of agreement and deadline.
The communication process works as follows: A specific deliverable is
requested by a team member of accountable party through an Interface Agreement
form, and sent to the accountable Interface Manager. She/he reviews the details of the
agreement, as well as the required date. Then this agreement is sent to the Interface
Manager of consulted party, and he/she reviews the requirements of the agreement.
With collaboration of team members, Interface Manager of consulted party accepts
the agreement, or requests clarification. The interface agreement goes back and forth
between the two parties, until they agree on the requirements of the agreement. At this
time, the Interface Manager of the consulted party is responsible for providing
deliverables by the agreed upon deadline. This process is time bonded: involved
parties must come to an agreement within a certain time frame in order to prevent any
unwanted delays. If they do not come to an agreement within the allocated time
frame, the owners’ Interface Coordinator is notified and becomes involved.
Step 5: Interface Closing
The interface agreement is considered closed if the accountable party approves
the accuracy and adequacy of the received deliverables. If the accountable party is not
satisfied with the provided service, the Interface Manager along with his team
members will update the interface agreement, and will ask for more appropriate
information/task. The consulted party will review the updated interface agreement
and inform the accountable party of his acceptance, objections or concerns. The
deadline for the interface agreement can be rescheduled with the acceptance of both
parties, and the other involved parties will be informed of the modifications and
updates. In fact, this process is a negotiation between parties involved at the interface
point. If the accountable and consulted parties are not able to resolve the issue and
accept the response provided to the agreement, the owner’s Interface Coordinator is
notified and can step in to help in the conflict resolution process.
CONCLUSION
Mega projects are complex because of the scope, size and numerous
stakeholders collaborating during the project life cycle. These projects face conflicts
and issues because of misalignment between stakeholders, and insufficient
communication process between them. Interface Management is introduced as an
effective approach in dealing with these problems. Implementing Interface
Management during the early stages of a project will improve project performance in
terms of quality, cost, time and safety by providing a framework for appropriately
understanding the inter-related requirements, needed information, and deadlines.
Furthermore, it helps to reduce additional costs of the project through adding
visibility on project description, roles, and common boundaries.
In summary, the proposed approach which has been implemented provides a
tool to improve project performance through better alignment between stakeholders,
enforcement of contract terms, and effective sharing and distribution of interrelated
information within formalized interface management framework, as well as
collaborative problem solving amongst interested parties.
454Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012

REFERENCES
Caglar, J. and Connolly, M. (2007). “Interface Management: Effective information
exchange through improved communication”, ABB Value Paper Series. ABB
Inc., Houston.
Chen, Q., Reichard, G., and Beliveau, Y. (2006). “An interface object model for
interface management in building construction”. The 6th European
Conference on Product and Process Modelling - eWork and eBusiness in
Architecture, Engineering and Construction, ECPPM 2006.
Chen, Q., Reichard, G., and Beliveau, Y. (2007). “Interface Management: A
Facilitator of Lean Construction and Agile Project Management”. in Proc. of
the 15th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
July 18-20, East Lansing, MI, 57-66.
Chua, D. K. H., and Godinot, M. (2006). “Use of a WBS matrix to improve interface
management in projects”. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 132 (1): 67-79.
Collins, R., Durham, R. Fayek, R. and Zeid, W. (2010). “Interface management in
complex projects”. Petroleum Technology Quarterly 15 (2): 27-35.
Crumrine, T., Nelson, R.Cordeiro, C.Loudermilk, M. and Malbrel, C.A. (2005).
“Interface management for subsea sand control completions”. Offshore 65
(10).
Huang, R. -Y, C. -T Huang, H. Lin, and W. -H Ku. (2008). “Factor analysis of
interface problems among construction parties - A case study of MRT”.
Journal of Marine Science and Technology 16 (1): 52-63.
Kelly, B., and S. Berger. (2006). “Interface management: Effective communication to
improve process safety”. Journal of Hazardous Materials 130 (3 SPEC. ISS.):
321-5.
Lin, Y. C. (2009). “Developing construction network-based interface management
system”. Paper presented at Building a Sustainable Future - Proceedings of
the 2009 Construction Research Congress.
Lisong, H. (2009). “Brand relationship interface management: Communication,
interaction and integration”. Paper presented at 2009 International
Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and
Industrial Engineering, ICIII 2009, Dec 26-27.
Nooteboom, U. (2004). “Interface management improves on-time, on-budget delivery
of megaprojects”. JPT Online. Society of Petroleum Engineers, August 2004,
Pavitt, T. C., and A. G. F. Gibb. (2003). “Interface management within construction:
In particular, building façade”. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 129 (1): 8-15.
Shokri, S., Safa, M., Haas, C.T., Haas, R.C.G. (2011). “A Conceptual Framework to
Improve Information and Process Management in the Execution of Capital
Projects”. 3rd International/9th Construction Specialty Conference Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada June 14-17, 2011
Wren, D. A. (1967). “Interface and interorganisation coordination”. The Academy of
Management Journal, 10(1): 69-81.
455Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012

Appendix 1: Workflow of the IMS
456Construction Research Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012