W2_TH_Developing Standardize OmniClass 3D WBS for Gas Station (GS) Project

Problem Definition

The WBS is a basic tool in project management. The WBS serves as framework for defining all project work elements and their interrelationships, collecting organizing information, developing relevant cost and revenue data, and integrating project management activities [1].

GS Project must have standardized WBS component because it can help the project team to deliver project objective with OTOBOS.

 

Develop the Feasible Alternative

The feasible alternatives to develop standardize WBS as follow[2]:

  1. NORZOK Standard Z-014 3D-WBS: Standard Cost Coding System (SCSS) edition 2, May 2012. This NORSOK standard describes a system for coding of cost and weight estimates and as-built/experience data.
  2. OmniClass 3D-WBS: OmniClass is a means of organizing and retrieving information specifically designed for the construction industry. It consists of 15 hierarchical tables, each of which represents a different facet of construction information or entries on it can be combined with entries on other tables to classify more complex subjects.

The author will develop the WBS using OmniClass.

 

Develop of the Outcome for Alternative

Moine (2013) has developed a 3D WBS model. All of this three dimension projects can be integrated which visualized as figure 1 below[3]:

Fig 1. Project Cubes Concept of 3D WBS Model[3]

Selection Criteria

The 15 inter-related OmniClass tables are[2]:

Fig 2. Inter-related OmniClass

Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

  1. GS Project– Zone Breakdown Structure (ZBS).

The term ZBS refer to the tree structure of area, sites or the geographical parts of the project generally. Detail ZBS for GS projects can be extracted by OmniClass Table 13 (Space by Function) which noted spaces for decompose ZBS components, which detail shown:

Chart 1 GS OmniClass ZBS.

Figure 2 GS Space by Function

  1. GS Project– Product Breakdown Structure (PBS).

The PBS breaks the project into physical elements, products, systems or sub systems. Detail PBS for GS project can be extracted by OmniClass Table 23 (Product) which noted GS facilities for decomposes PBS components, which detail shown:

Chart 2 GS OmniClass PBS.

Figure 3 GS Facilities.

  1. GS Project– Activity Breakdown Structure (ABS).

ABS is the hierarchy of activities, phases, and sub-activities. Detail ABS for GS project can be extracted by OmniClass Table 31 (Phases) which noted project phase for decompose ABS components, which detail shown:

Chart 3 GS OmniClass ABS.

  1. GS Project– 3D WBS.

The 3 types of GS project dimension are mixed together to form dimensional cube where OmniClass PBS as x-axis, OmniClass ABS as y-axis and OmniClass ZBS as z-axis, which shown at 3D WBS below.

Figure 4 GS OmniClass 3D WBS.

Selection of the Preferred Alternatives

Based on analysis above, shown that the Omniclass tables give more detailed WBS and can be fully implemented for standardize 3D WBS into GS Project.

Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation Result

OmniClass is specifically designed for the construction industry, so use the tables to be suitable for O&G projects is challenging task. It is necessary to keep update the WBS periodically.

 

References:

  1. Sullivan, W.G., Wicks, E.M., Koelling, C.P., (2014). Engineering Economy 16th edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
  2. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W14_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/w14_sas_developing-standardize-omniclass-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  3. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W12_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/w12_sas_developing-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/

 

 

W2.1_UDS_Choosing a New Fuel Terminal Location in Dumai Using Additive Weighting Technique in Multi-Attribute Decision Making

  1. Problem Evaluation

Location of the new Fuel Terminal is one critical factor that determines operational success. Especially in build new fuel terminal, we must consider at least two aspects such as land aspect and sea aspect. The fact is very hard to find the location that has both aspects perfectly like example building project of a New Fuel Terminal in Dumai. But if we get the best one it has already bought or developed, so we have to choose the optimum location.

  1. Development of feasible alternatives

In the beginning there are three alternative locations in Dumai for build new Fuel Terminal, among others:

  1. Patra Dok Dumai
  2. Beside Refinery
  3. Beside Existing Terminal

Figure 1. Alternative of a New Fuel Terminal Location in Dumai

Our purpose is build a sea feed Terminal so the third alternative which don’t have coastline can be eliminated. So The Team will choose two locations to build new Fuel Terminal to meet minimum operational criteria.

  1. Development the outcome for each alternative

Choosing the optimum location is decision making strategy. There are some theories in Multi-Attribute Decision Making that can help us to find the optimum (Table 1). In this case we use “Additive Weighting Technique” because base on our team discussion each criteria have different relative importance. With this technique we can find the best (Optimum) location based on calculation between weighted / rank and scoring of the criteria.

Table 1. Multi-Attribute Decision Making Technique

The find the best location by using Additive Weighting Technique, First we have to do is select the criteria of land and sea aspect. Second, we make a weighting of the criteria. Weighting criteria may come from proportional rank of the criteria or expert judgment. Third, we give a number (Likert scale 1-3) in every criteria and time it with the weighting of every criteria. So we can choose the location with the highest score.

Table 2. Additive Weighting Technique Step

  1. Selection of criteria

Summary result of the weighting criteria each alternative as follow :

Table 3. Weighting Land Aspect Criteria

Table 4. Weighting Sea Aspect Criteria

Base on sum result of Table 3 and Table 4, Patra Dok Dumai location gets the highest score.

  1. Analysis and comparison of the alternative

Additive weighting calculation show Patra Dok Dumai location gets higher score in sea aspect criteria but lower score in land aspect criteria. It indicate this location is not the best but the optimum alternative that we have.

  1. Alternative selection

Choose the optimum not the best alternative is not a bad decision. It could be happen as long as they pass minimum requirement of operational success and we already prepare all of the mitigation of the risk.

  1. Performance monitoring & Post Evaluation Result

Even we already have the chosen alternative base on operational aspect also we have to evaluate the alternative base on economic aspect. Maybe in economic view our alternative not feasible to run so must go back to beginning and do this iteration until we get feasible alternative both on operational and economic aspect.

  1. References
    1. Planning Planet. (2017). Multi-Attribute Decision Making. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective Figures 8-14
    2. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., &Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 14 – Decision Making Considering Multiattributes., pp.559-608.
    3. Norris, G. A., & Marshall, H. E. (1995). Multiattribute decision analysis method for evaluating buildings and building systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology.