integrated project delivery: built to last cmaa water summit july 20, 2010 james a. parrott...
TRANSCRIPT
Integrated Project Delivery:Built to Last
CMAA Water Summit
July 20, 2010
James A. Parrott
Executive Director
MSDGC Background
• Population Served– 850,000 in Hamilton
County, Ohio– 220,000
connections
• Double Governance– Hamilton County
Sewer District– Operated by City of
Cincinnati
MSDGC Challenges• Aging Infrastructure
– About 50% combined sewers– Some 150 years old
• Multi-Billion $Consent Order – Plan submitted in 2006– Conditional approval in 2009
• Phase 1 = $1.2B by 2019• Stagnant/Failing Local and National
economy– Unprecedented local layoffs
(especially in government)– Affordability issues with residents
Key Facts
• MSD is among the top 5 CSO dischargers in the US
• MSD must submit a plan to USEPA by December 2012 for the Lower Mill Creek Remedy (location of our largest CSO)
• MSD has until 2017 to submit Phase II Schedule
MSD’s Environmental Challenge
Must control by 85%
Wet Weather StrategySource ControlConveyance & StorageProduct Control
Phased ApproachPhase 1: 2009 – 2019Phase 2: Schedule to be submitted by 2017
Controlled SpendingPhase 1: $1.145BCredit for $300M of projects already builtPhase 2: To Be Determined
Strategy
Affordability
Flexibility
How to Build a Consent Order
2009 2010 2011 2012 2017 2018
Submit Plan for Phase 2 including schedule and costs
2009
MSD received conditional approval of the Wet Weather
Plan after three years of negotiations
2011
Evaluate alternatives to achieve overflow reductions of 2BG
2017
2018
MSD must achieve 2 BG overflow
reduction in Lower Mill Creek
2012
MSD will integrate results to arrive at a recommended plan to submit to USEPA
2010
Final legal action anticipated
Clock is Ticking
Phase 1 Costs (2006$)
$-
$20.0
$40.0
$60.0
$80.0
$100.0
$120.0
$140.0
$160.0
$180.0
$200.0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Years
Ann
ual C
ost (
M$)
$-
$200.0
$400.0
$600.0
$800.0
$1,000.0
$1,200.0
$1,400.0
$1,600.0
$1,800.0
Tota
l Cos
t (M
$)
Annual
Total
WWIP Phases & Workload
250
200
150
100
50
0
Nu
mb
er o
f P
roje
cts
Year
2007 2008 20 9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 20290
Developm ent Phase Peak Production Phase Ram p Down Phase
Construction Design PlanningMobilization
Period
WWIP Phase I70 Completed45 New Projects8 Annual Allowances
WWIP Phase IITotal167 ProjectsSchedule will be negotiated
Conveyance & Storage
60%
Product Con-trol
35%Other5%
WWIP as Currently Approved
Wet Weather Strategy Determines Capital Portfolio
MSD Wet Weather Strategy Determines the Project Portfolio
• Source Control– Removal of natural drainage from
entering the system– Regional BMPs, Separate storm
sewer installation• Conveyance & Storage
– Tunnels, parallel interceptors, storage facilities
– Real-Time control• Product Control
– EHRT and peak flow enhancements to existing WWTP’s
MSD Wet Weather StrategyImplementation
Hydraulic Grade Line
How We Got Started
• Three phased PMC– GAP Analysis
• Highlighted project risks, resource and process needs
– Developing Process to Bridge the GAP • Master Program Management Plan
– Implementation Plan and Monitor Progress
MSD Organization in 2006
Director
Deputy Director
Administration Treatment Engineering CollectionsLaboratory &
Industrial Program
IT
Chief Engineer Wet Weather
Strategy
CityProgram MgtCounty
Engineering Division
Superintendent
Administration PlanningProject
Management: Design
Project Management: Construction
Public Services
Program Mgt
Conventional “Cradle to Grave” Project ManagementProgram Management and Monitoring operates in own silo
What We Know NowThat We Didn’t Know Then…
• Organizational structure change inevitable– What we did…. Tried to make
incremental change– What we should have done…. Slash
and Burn– Staff must:
oHave sense of urgencyo Be open to changeoObtain new skill setsoOr GET OUT OF THE WAY!
How We Needed to Change
• MSD Manages Integrated Program– External Monitoring– Incentive based embedded staff
• Business Case Evaluations– Project selection by Triple Bottom Line
analysis
• Separated Planning from Design/Construction– Where the rubber hits the road– Allows priority focus for Project Delivery
MSD Organization in 2010
Director
Deputy
Director
Admin TreatmentEngineering:
Project Delivery
Engineering: Planning &
DevelopmentCollections
Laboratory & Industrial Program
IT
Chief Engineer
Stormwater Management
Wet Weather Strategy
Capital Programs Management
MSD Executive Leadership
Financial Planning &
Analysis
Engineering:
Project Delivery
Engineering:
Planning & Development
Enterprise Management
Project Controls
Design & Construction Management
Quality Assurance
Environmental Programs
Wet Weather Strategy
Cross-Functional Responsibility and Imbedded Program Management Support with External Monitors
Environmental Programs
EP Manager
SustainableProject
Construction Delivery
Sustainable Watershed
Planner
Demonstration Programs
Concentration on Sustainable Watershed Management
Conveyance & Storage
60%
Product Control
35%Other
5%
Current WWIP Profile
Source Control
35%
Conveyance & Storage
35%
Product Control
25%
Other5%
Potential Sustainable Approach
Other Lessons Learned
• Financial System Inadequate – Multiple systems needed to be integrated– Need analysis and decision support tools
• Let Risk Management Drive Decisions– Justify projects and alternative selection
inside a risk framework– Strengthen Asset Management principles
• Communication– Internal and external tools necessary
• Comprehensive process integrating all enterprise risks– Corporate– Asset– Operational– Project
Implementation
• Process driven by MSD Financial Policies– Owned by
Finance Manager
MSD Risk Management
Other Lessons Learned
• Let Risk Management Drive Decisions– Justify projects and alternative selection
inside a risk framework– Strengthen Asset Management principles
• Financial System Inadequate – Multiple systems needed to be integrated– Need analysis and decision support tools
• Communication– Internal and external tools necessary
Sharing the Vision
Technology Drivers
Where We AreTactical
• Activity-Based• Document
Management• Construction
Coordination
Where We Are GoingStrategic
• Integrated Management• Workflow Integration
through Document Control• Watershed Management
Required Systems• Fully functional DMZ• Scheduling tool • Integrated financial management system• Forecasting and Earned Value tools• Asset management system
Built to Last Formula
1. Consent Order with Flexibility
2. Wet Weather Strategy that leverages infrastructure investments to create factor conditions that support community development/urban infill
3. Organization Structure that support integrated project management
4. Renewed focus on environmental programs that support the wet weather strategy
5. Financial and Risk Practices linked with strategic organizational performance
Sustainable Organization – Financially and operationally stable
Sustainable Infrastructure – Does not create future liabilities
Sustainable Community – Maximizes benefits for all residents
Value CreationLeveraging MSD Investments
