Project Management View from Rail Transit Programs and Projects

On a recent bridge project, the infiltration of water through the decking to the roadway underneath was obvious.   A field visitor to the bridge after a heavy rain expressed dissatisfaction and suggested the bridge was like a car wash.   Another stakeholder sent a terse Email indicating an inspection was wasting people’s time because the waterproofing non-conformance was not corrected.   

Here is a project manager’s perspective on the three primary steps in the non-conformance process: 

Opening:         At this step, the contractor and quality group determined there is a non-conformance of the product/deliverables to meet the contract requirements.   A Non-Conformance Report (NCR) is created and distributed for engineer and quality group review.  (This can be preceded by an Observation, which is reviewed and confirmed to be a non-conforming condition.) 

Pending:          At this step, the contractor, engineer and quality groups agree on the required corrective action to resolve the described non-conformance.  Procedures and as needed, updated drawings or sketches are approved and ready for execution.    

Closing:           At this step, the contractor and construction manager agree the corrective action is completed and after testing, it is confirmed the work product/deliverables meet the contract.  Quality records are available to substantiate closing the NCR.

The NCR is an output for controlling non-conforming conditions on projects, which are based on contract requirements as well as industry standards by International Organization for Standards (ISO) and Project Management Institute (PMI).  The NCR is an integral part of a Project Quality Management System Plan (QMS) and the project approved Quality Manual from each consultant, contractor, vendor, manufacturer and independent testing agency. 

A sample contract might include the following QMS attributes, which can be customized to the contract scope such as design, construction, construction management and testing agency:

• Management Responsibilities
• Design [and/or Construction] Control
• Document Control
• Purchasing
• Supplied Items
• Product Identification and Traceability
• Process Control
• Inspection and Testing
• Inspection, Measuring and Test Equipment
• Inspection and Test Status
• Non Conformance
• Corrective Action
• Quality Records
• Quality Audits
• Training

While an NCR was written and the corrective action was agreed upon by the Engineer and product manufacturer regarding the bridge, there were delays in arranging the required work conditions for completing the corrective action.  Subsequently, the repair to the bridge waterproofing was not successful in resolving the drainage problem.  As a result, the same repair was scheduled for the future, which further increased the overall process duration.

There were no contract requirements or project level plans containing performance goals/durations for each step.    However, management for the contractor and PM oversight were questioning the number of open NCRs and the durations to closure.   Management perceived the durations for the NCRs were much too long.

The NCR process durations are a function of the work hours and conditions for each contract in a project.   As a result, each project and each contract may have different durations for the optimum project processes including NCRs. 

Factors affecting NCR durations:

• Proximity and access to the work location
• Priority of work by the Engineer and Quality team representatives
• Prescribed durations for response dictated by project document control goals
• Schedule for successor activities using the product and deliverable cited in NCR
• Conditions, including temperature, weather, and safe work environment, required for implementing the corrective action
• Availability of Independent Testing Agencies to physically confirm and generate a Report the corrective action are complete, successful and meet contract requirements.

Management of NCR performance should be based on historical data from previous experience with the process lifecycle provided by the Buyer’s organization on completed projects similar in scope, cost, schedule, complexity, contract types, and document control methodology.   Without prior experience, performance metrics may need to go through several trial periods based on the best estimate of the NCR work flow.

The estimated work flow should be developed, vetted and tested by the Buyer and Seller before implementing performance management/measurement of NCR durations.  An example for the NCR work flow and optimum activity timeframes for a rail transit project is below.  The process includes Field personnel identifying variances to requirements and  overseeing site work, Engineer to evaluate the NCR/Observation and determine the corrective action, Contractor to perform the corrective action and the Field personnel to confirm the corrective action meet requirements.  This example may be a useful framework across several industries.

Opening:         The activities in this phase are:

• Report observation to Quality group-Day 1
• Evaluate observation and determine if corrected by Construction group-Day 7 (NCR not required)
• Determine work was completed without correcting the variance to requirements-Day 14
• Initiate and complete NCR-Day 21

Pending:          The activities in this phase are:

• Submit NCR to Engineer for review-Day 22
• Conduct field inspection of conditions-Day 29
• Develop corrective action/contract change-Day 59
• Submit corrective action for Buyer review-Day 58
• Obtain Buyer approval on corrective action-Day 72

Closing:           The activities in this phase are:

• Notify Construction group to implement corrective action-Day 73
• Obtain materials and equipment for work-Day 87
• Complete corrective action work-Day 101
• Issue NCR confirming completion-Day 108
• Obtain Buyer approval on completion or work to requirements-Day 122

Accounting for the established review goals, processing time for document control, and the limited access to site locations, the optimum duration for NCR process = 122 days from initial Observation.   The potential metrics for monitoring performance are:   OPENING = 21 days from Observation.   PENDING = 51 days from NCR start.    CLOSING = 50 days from approval of NCR corrective action.

TIP:    PM should balance the work flow and activity timeframe to the specific project scope and durations common to the industry, the Buyer’s standard organization processes, and the review duration goals for document control/production.

TIP:    PM should evaluate the managerial and administrate effort by the Buyer and contractor to explain performance variances to goal durations, which may already be monitored and measurable by other means such as achieving contract and forecast milestones.  Typical milestones, including Substantial Completion, Construction Completion and Final Completion/Acceptance are dependent on closing NCRs and Observations. 

TIP:    Metrics and dashboards are proven management tools for monitoring project performance as well as organizational silos.  PM should assess the totality of the management dashboards so that the team, stakeholders, funding partners, community and political influencers remain focused on critical goals without distraction to tie up managerial resources explaining variances to goals on items that do not directly affect progress and achieving goals. 

TIP:    The performance on NCRs may not be as critical as other key indicators that more directly affect interdependencies on achieving operational use and final acceptance of the project product/deliverable by hard schedule dates and milestones.

TIP:   Project QMS and contractor/consultant Quality Manuals should clearly define the attributes for an Observation and Non Conformance.  Both work flows should provide checkpoints to eliminate nuisance and trivial items identified during routine in-progress inspections of work.  These items should be resolved by the Buyer’s and Seller’s supervision on-site.    

Recently a colleague in a leadership position on a rail transit project said, they do not understand the importance of testing.    This came after a project meeting, where incorporating more activities for Commissioning Acceptance and Maintenance Plan (CAMP) into the Detailed Contract Schedule (DCS) was discussed.   At the meeting, the feedback from the contractor’s Project Controls leader indicated that activities for inspection, testing and CAMP deliverables should not be in the DCS.   

In a previously posted article regarding Best Practices for Commissioning Acceptance and Maintenance Plan (CAMP), the Commissioning component was described as:  

Commissioning:   This is the pre-requisite activities and deliverables for starting the CAMP package and deliverables for Acceptance, and it is the Buyer’s (Owner) process for verification of project/contract scope and the Seller’s (Contractor) compliance with requirements.    The activities typically include Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT), On-Site Acceptance Testing (SAT), In-progress Inspections, Start-Up and Burn-In.   Commissioning activities should be integrated into Project Control schedules and Quality Plans, which contain quality control inspection and test plans.

This article expands on the Commissioning element of the CAMP process and deliverables and it describes the importance on rail transit projects.   The project assets typically include track switches and machines, signal systems, traction power systems, signal power systems, communication systems and security systems.      

Commissioning-Inspection and Testing

Inspections and testing of the contract product and deliverables is essential for demonstrating the work meets the contract and is ready for final acceptance.   The inspection and testing requirements are defined by the Owner or its designated Designer of Record (DOR) in the contract documents and in project plans.

• Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT):   FAT is applied to high value, long lead, and critical assets that require extreme confidence that the asset will work when installed and interconnected to other products in the project to create an integrated system.    These type assets are usually supplied by specialty contractors to prime contractors for interconnecting all conduits and cables at the project site for operation.   The FAT is performed by the specialty contractors and it is usually witnessed by the prime contractor and other technical experts on the project.  FAT tests can range from several days to nearly a week or more depending on the complexity of test procedures and an action to correct problems.   FATs that require additional time may impact scheduled progress and require adjustments to interdependent activities in the DCS.
• On-Site Acceptance Testing (SAT):  SAT is the successor to FAT.  SAT replicates much of the FAT and focuses on added testing for verifying operation with interconnected conducts, cable and supervisory systems.   The SAT is performed by the prime contractor and it is usually witnessed by the specialty contractor and other technical experts on the project.   Specialty contractors often provide on-site technical assistance to the prime contractor.   Due to the amount of preparatory pre-testing, SAT tests are usually several days and may require an Owner to make operational changes to accommodate testing.   SATs that require additional time may impact scheduled progress and require adjustments to interdependent activities in the DCS.
• System Integration Testing (SIT):  SIT  is testing of several critical assets after the pre-requisite predecessor testing, including FAT and SAT.  SIT encompasses verifying asset operation within the overall rail transit system under conditions required to support its service plan, including train movement, passenger movement, customer information and announcements, safety and security monitoring, and central operating centers.   SITs that require additional time may impact scheduled progress and require adjustments to interdependent activities in the DCS.
• First Article Inspections (FAIs):   FAIs involve testing to prove out design and functionality of components before mass production.   FAIs are usually applied to projects with retrofit scope involving the installation of equipment fleet-wide or system-wide to meet legal, statutory or regulatory requirements.    FAIs are performed at the specialty contractors’ facilities and may be followed by prototype installations on Owner property.   FAIs will create schedule hold points in DCS before specialty contractors will be released for production and delivery of the component.
• Special Inspections (SIs):   SIs (and testing by independent testing agencies) are applied to project elements of construction such as steel, concrete, masonry, wood, soil, fire resistant materials, mastics, and smoke control, which bridges and buildings.   The SIs scope includes soil conditions, concrete rebar and formwork, concrete condition and strength, welding of structural members, bolting of structural members and fire proof insulation and coatings.   SIs will create schedule hold points in DCS for verifying test results meet requirements before work can proceed. 
• Inspection and Testing Plans (ITP):   The ITP complements the SIs and covers the full scope of the project as described in the contract drawings and specifications.      ITP consists of the more routine inspections and tests that are part of the project Quality Management Program, which includes the Construction Quality Plan for overseeing the contractor’s workmanship, quality of materials, and compliance with contract drawings and specifications.   ITPs may create hold points in DCS for substantial completion and construction completion milestones, and to CAMP processes and deliverables until non-conformances are repaired, corrected or accepted under conditions by Owner or DOR.

With exception of ITPs, all of the inspections and tests require integration with interdependent construction activities to determine baseline dates.  As construction progress is updated in the DCS, changes in dates for inspections and testing may occur.

Best Practices - Commissioning

• Projects must have a Project Management Plan covering construction monitoring and quality management with descriptions of scope, personnel, processes, and deliverables (sample Forms).
• Contractor must have written procedures and deliverables for inspection and testing activities, and a process for monitoring performance and periodically updating plans to reflect scope changes and adjustments due to DCS.  
• Owner must have a written plan to support contractor inspection and testing plans and with processes for monitoring Commissioning performance and implementing project and contract improvements.  
• Owner’s project manager, with appropriate support staff, must focus on oversight of the contractor/subcontractors and provide direction to reinforce effective and integrated Quality processes across managerial silos.
• Owner’s project representatives, or designated consultants, must be very familiar with the Organization and the responsible parties for obtaining and documenting technical feedback on the various inspections and testing for project elements.
• Owner’s processes for travel arrangements must be flexible and responsive to changes in FAT and SAT dates.  This may be accomplished by implementing advance approvals for baseline dates that contain provisions to change dates without resubmitting arrangements. 

TIP:   Requirements for Project Management Plans can be found at several resources including www.transit.dot.gov [Federal Transit Administration] and www.PMI.org [Project Management Institute.]

TIP:    On large projects, FATs, SATs and FAIs need to be coordinated to avoid conflicts and to assure personnel and travel arrangements can be available for inspection and testing dates.

TIP:   FATs and SATs require advance review and approvals of the scope and procedures.  At least 60 days notice/submittal reviews prior to the anticipated dates should be shown on the DCS.

TIP:    For project work on system expansions, most of the SIT can be done while maintaining operations on other parts of the system. 

TIP:   For project work that is performed on an operating system, the SIT will need detailed staging and require an Owner to make operational changes to accommodate testing.     

Newpapers, industry magazines, corporate press releases and televisions sound-bites have introduced “transformation” and “transformational” into the lexicon of content in reporting on projects and describing corporate reorganizations.   

From behind podiums and microphones, executives and public officials are touting the benefits of transformational projects.   The content typically emphasizes how the projects will transform the company, the region, the community and the products/services to customers.   Some of the projects in the media include:

• Hudson Yards – a real estate development over a rail right of way
• 7 Subway Line Extension – a transit system expansion extending from 42ndSt to 34thSt at  Hudson Yards
• 2nd Ave Subway – a transit system expansion along Manhattan’s east side between 63rdSt and 96thSt
• Double Track  -  a railroad system expansion between Farmingdale and Ronkonkoma
• 3rd Track – a railroad system expansion between Floral Park and Hicksville

In the rail transit domain, the context may contain dramatic changes in the organization to improve operating performance or to re-energize the completion of major projects that change the existing products and services to customers.   This may include system expansions with new terminals that advertise high-end property features and stores, and a new fleet with never before seen amenities, such as charging stations, video advertizing, new seating features, and CCTV monitoring operator and passenger compartments.  

On projects, the organization provides the input and the tools and techniques to accomplish the plan and realize the deliverables and benefits.  Not surprising, transformational projects usually contain detailed analysis of the financial investment and forecast returns for the execution, start-up, operation and maintenance phases.   Each of these phases may also require adjusting the organization’s operating model for staffing, training, facilities and furnishing, tools and equipment, and materials.  

Transforming an organization is different than the results from the output of the projects involving capital improvements, and it may require changes in culture, reporting structure, and processes and procedures.    For these transformations, there needs to be a strategic framework for changing the current performance trends and to better aligning organizational assets with longer term goals and expectations for both short term and continued improvement in the quality of management and business operations.   Some organizational changes in the media include:

• Restructuring management and business processes, procedures and practices at NYC-MTA
• Changing management leadership at MTA East Side Access Project with new Leadership
• Integrating a new PMO into the MTA East Side Access Projects
• Launching a consolidated website for MTA-LIRR Projects – A Modern LI (http://www.amodernli.com)  

Any change is an organization can be disruptive and create challenges to existing operations while improvements are defined and implemented systematically.   The decided upon change should be the outcome of a thorough review of the existing organizational conditions, work flow problems and execution risks.  Determining the transformation plan and proofing the end results will focus on:

Validating the reported performance metrics and trends are correct and accurate

Verifying and concurring changes are required to better align all activities and deliverables with the organization’s business plan and the organization’s assets including personnel, processes, procedures, tools, and techniques.      

The transformation should be undertaken as a project or a series of projects that when completed can mitigate conditions or solve the stated problem(s), and achieve the envisioned end results.  The solutions should demonstrate improvements in the organization ability and confidence in achieving the short term and long term goals.  Ideally, the plan will follow proven project management and quality management processes and methods and adhere to a defined lifecycle.   However before finalizing a plan roll-out, the organization’s executives should perform a rigorous vetting of the plan to prove out assumptions, approve the approach and hold the project team accountable for the expected results.  

The transformation initiative must be carefully planned and executed with transparency throughout the organization’s reporting structure.   The lessons for updating tools and techniques and adopting best practices learned from executing capital projects will be applied for transformation, including a proven communications plan and a strong scope management plan.

An operating transformation in an organization will require a well defined communications plan covering:

• Internal press releases on the poor performance and the plan for making improvements in processes, training personnel and hiring additional staff
• External press releases on corporate commits to specific and aggressive milestones and dates for implementing changes
• Local media coverage and endorsements by public officials and influencers to the benefits from the changes to the community and the region
• Social media videos covering sound bites on cost savings, tax reductions, employment increases, and home values

The transformation plan will be complemented by strong project governance and highly skilled and experienced project staff.  Since the transformation will likely require changes in existing practices, processes and procedures, it will be necessary to continue the existing operations while the transformation proceeds.   As milestones and deliverables are achieved, changes will be systematically and deliberately implemented.   The plan will identify the required training for personnel and the new equipment, tools, software and software licenses that will be installed, tested and ready for use.    

The scope of the transformation will focus on re-engineering management work flows, which are the root cause of poor performance metrics.  The work flow reviews should include attributes and objectives such as:

• Existing project documents to identify gaps, such as materials management involving Owner supplied materials, and work zone logistics for work areas shared by multiple contractors
• Existing project documents to eliminate requirements that are obsolete and no longer used for management functions
• Lessons Learned program to ensure documenting and sharing negative and positive experiences across all management functions
• Work flow durations to compare expected timelines with actual durations
• Processes and procedures to make changes to overly complex and time consuming steps, which erode value by creating non-value added deliverables, such as duplicating logs and tracking sheets already produced by other participants.
• Project schedule to validate activity sequences, interfaces with predecessor and successor work packages, and contact time and productivity is consistent with work hours and access restrictions.

Like project plans, the transformation milestones and dates should be realistic, measurable and achievable.   In some cases, public sector transformations are the product of executive goals and government influencers.    This often creates lofty promises and aggressive performance metrics that challenge an organization’s operating processes, its long established working culture, and the quality of personnel.   These challenges and risks will need to be addressed as part of the transformation plans.   Ideally, the format and content of the plans will resemble the Project Charter and Project Management Plan requirements from Project Management Institutes – Project Management Body of Knowledge (www.pmi.org) and Federal Transit Administration (www.FTA.dot.gov).

Basic Management Fundamentals

Owners’ upper management and project governance, and Project Management Offices’ (PMO) leadership are always looking for the single biggest issues that can be resolved to remove impediments to project progress and performance, and to get a stagnate project back on track.   But sometimes it is the smallest most basic activities that create the largest issues for maintaining proactive management on a project.

Recently, a new management team was introduced on a mega project to convert the contract management centric approach to a PMO centric management approach.   This change was understandable and foreseen as beneficial to improving the overall management on the project.   While this was aligned with the standards and practices defined by the global professional organization Project Management Institute (PMI), there was Owner oversight, construction management, contract management, project controls, quality management and risk management – but no defined project management roles in the organization’s management structure.  

As expected, the new PMO team focused on analytics and decentralized management into specific physical asset project boundaries that will be managed independently to meet goals within a segmented territory of the project.   The basis of this approach was adopted from a predecessor review by an industry management consultant that assured the Owner that the approach, which worked in 2001 on a major European project, would do the same for a 2018 project in North America. 

While understandable in its presentation to the Owner’s Board, it did not resolve the root cause of the performance attributes affecting overall project progress.   Hidden in plain site were common management interactions between project participants that deteriorated the work environment required for effective project management.   Some of the typical factors negatively affecting project performance, included:

• Failing to respond to Letters from consultants and contractors
• Continuously submitting Cost Recovery Letters to consultants and contractors
• Ignoring requirements in contracts with consultants and contractors
• Demonstrating distrust of hired consultants for design, project management and construction management services
• Disregarding expert judgment from consultants with valuable experience in the project, similar projects or intimate knowledge of the Owner’s requirements
• Committing to unrealistic and unreliable schedules that are clearly disconnected with historical data and industry processes
• Poorly managing expectations within established control documents

Roll-out of the new PMO centric approach was implemented with Owner’s Board acceptance and project governance support.   Expectations were high for turn-around of performance to critical dates leading to project realization.  Monitoring of performance metrics produced charts, dash boards, and heat maps that required constant attention to variances and management inquiries. 

Some of the missed opportunities included:

• Reinforcing organizational core values and professional standards for work quality and conduct
• Eliminating contract constraints preventing a Spirit De Corp with defined staff selected for solving problems and increasing project execution progress
• Providing the best and most experienced Owner’s staff on the project
• Dismissing expert judgment that is not aligned with political commitments or unrealistic organizational goals
• Ignoring risks and management actions identified by project professionals
• Expecting shorter process durations without implementing improvements or obtaining variances to organizational processes, funding partner processes or government statutory requirements. 
• Committing to critical path scheduling on complex projects without recognizing interdependencies of systems engineering and execution processes  

Reality A

Owner’s hire consultants for expertise that does not exist in-house or that is used to supplement staffing levels and to validate expertise and conclusions of in-house personnel accountable for the same services.   In organizations where institutional expertise has been drastically depleted, Owners also hire consultants to oversee other consultants.   Some organizations have demonstrated that hiring a consultant allows them to disrespect and bully other consultants.    As a result, Owner’s management of consultants must monitor the interactions with the organization to assure consultant staff is provided respect and professional courtesy that comes with professional ethics, contract requirements, and laws and statutory requirements.   If not, the consultants will expend scarce project funds on non-value added activities that displace funds allocated for the creation of project assets.

Reality B

The PMO, organization and consultants hired by the organization must insist on a code of respect that transcends contractual responsibilities.  Just as in-house staff are accountable for interactions between employees, it is equally important the organization’s consultants insist on respect in interaction between in-house staff and consultants, and between consultants.

Analytics at the Expenses of PM Overhead

Project Management Offices (PMO) establish and uniformly apply Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for program and project managers to monitor performance on projects and programs of projects (Mega projects).   Typical KPIs on projects are Schedule Performance Index (SPI), Cost Performance Index (CPI) and Planned EVM verse Actual EVM.    Other KPIs for monitoring project cost and schedule goals can include forecasts of future efforts expressed in ratios including remaining duration, remaining EVM, Estimate To Complete, and pending project/contract changes.     

For projects that are not performing as expected, PMOs may need to conduct management reviews and implement additional monitoring measures to mitigate poor performance to cost and schedule.   As a result, more granular KPIs (Sub-KPIs) are created for work directly related to the performance of individual contributors with significant roles and responsibilities where the service quality was identified as a root cause affecting project performance. 

The purpose of the Sub-KPIs is to monitor, measure, assess and act on performance attributes and make decisions on critical activities in order to assure progress to meet project schedule milestones.  The goal is to improve processes and procedures, and to reduce schedule activity durations, which are identified as risk threats to critical project dates.   Each of the Sub-KPIs will capture historical data that will be used for identifying and resolving problems and for increasing confidence in future project decisions.  

This new level of monitoring will focus on analytics that PMO executives should establish through a defined breakdown structure of KPIs, which include metrics for activities that are driving durations of processes and procedures essential to quality performance to goals.    

Examples of Sub-KPIs include:

• Days for processing Contract Change Orders (CO)
• Days and manhours for reviewing Contractor Submittals
• Days and manhours for responding to Contractor RFIs
• Days for processing Project Changes (PC)
• Percentage CO Change Amount from Original Contract Award Amount
• Percentage PC Change Amount from the Original Project Budget.

In the example, the Sub-KPIs are all related to schedule progress as prioritized by the PMO.   A high percentage are outside the project teams control, and under the direct responsibility of the PMO’s management and the contracting office, which is usually an existing organizational asset within the Owner’s business structure.   As a result, monitoring of the related Sub-KPIs should have executive level buy-in and commitment that provides the PMO with the authority to improve processes and procedures.  

Creating new Sub-KPIs will require enhancement to existing reporting to incorporate color coded graphics such as dashboards, heat maps, histograms, and bar graphs, which provide conspicuous visual recognition of critical metrics for managing efforts across the project.   The color coding may indicate Red – Outside Tolerances - Action Required, Yellow – Near Tolerance Thresholds - Action Under Review, and Green – Within Tolerances - No Action  Required.   

Depending on the project domain, other Sub-KPIs may be created for monitoring and improving performance to intermediate milestones and EVM targets.    For rail-transit projects, there may be significant access restraints, production time limits, and promised on-site services by Owner to contractor.    In this case, Sub-KPIs might include ratios for:  1) Actual access days to site and planned access days.   2) Actual contact hours and planned production hours.   3) Actual crew days for work and planned crew days to support contractor.   4) Accrued liquidated damages and contract amount.   5) Accrued incentive payments verse contract budget.

Reality A

In theory, KPIs and Sub-KPIs increase management quality and improves project performance at the expense of added management overhead cost and staff levels.   However, each PMO needs to assess the benefits from the added managerial effort for implementing and monitoring the KPIs and Sub-KPIs.

Reality B

The number of KPIs will proportionally increase costs for Project Controls, management overhead and for added project analysts that are required for the collecting data, reporting data, explaining metric variances and implementing corrective actions.    

Reality C

At the expenses of other progress/performance report attributes and content, readers may overly focus on the red metrics while ignoring non-red items.  This may cause missed opportunities on schedule risk events that may actually be more significant to schedule performance and be more easily resolved to mitigate or avoid the events.

Reality D

Performance monitoring of Sub-KPIs without an improvement in schedule durations may indicate processes are not aligned with project expectations despite recognition of the impact to progress.    Executive management needs to ensure that the metrics identified as contributing to schedule risks can be mitigated.  Otherwise, the risks are just be accepted threats that need to be built into the schedule.