A Framework for Enhancing Engineering Deliverables to Improve Construction Performance in Oil and Gas Projects
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Alberta’s oil industry is one of the largest constituents of Canada’s economy, and will remain a key determinant of the nation’s economic growth for the foreseeable future. Existing research conducted on the performance of Alberta’s oil industry capital projects reveals that construction cost overruns and schedule delays are among the leading contributors to capital expenditure in oil and gas projects. The significance of project cost and schedule growth has motivated industry and academia to initiate a great amount of research identifying the factors affecting construction performance in oil and gas construction projects. Problems in the project engineering phase, along with many other factors, have been identified as a root cause leading to cost and schedule slippage in construction within oil and gas projects. The current study aims at bridging the existing knowledge gap of: (a) what factors in engineering deliverables are actually contributing to poor cost and schedule performance, and (b) how those factors can be mitigated during the process of projects. This research has been conducted in two phases to address those objectives. A quantitative research approach was adopted in the first phase to detect the issues in engineering deliverables, and a qualitative method was used in the second phase to identify the root causes that contribute to those issues, and the measures to mitigate them. In the first phase, the research data were collected through a questionnaire survey, and were quantitatively analysed to rank the identified issues by their impact on construction performance. In the second phase, interviewing was the main instrument for collection of data, which were then analysed using qualitative research techniques. Three major groups of issues were identified as the top-rank contributors to poor construction performance: engineering design issues, engineering schedule issues, and design changes after IFC (Issued for Construction) revision. The qualitative study in the second phase of the research revealed communications as the root of what needs to be improved to enhance engineering deliverables. Built on the foundations of the findings in the two phases of the research, a framework was developed for enhancing engineering deliverables to improve construction performance. The outcomes of this study can be used by oil industry project officials at different levels, to prevent construction cost and schedule growth, through implementing the findings of the research in project process, procedures, and other activities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».