Interface Management in Mega Oil Refinery Projects

Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Mortaheb, Assistant Professor,

Department of Civil Engineering,
Project Management Specialization, Sharif University of Technology
Mehrshad Rahimi, Department of Civil Engineering,
Project Management Specialization, Sharif University of Technology
Shahab Zardynezhad, Department of Civil Engineering,
Project Management Specialization, Sharif University of Technology/University of Calgary
IRAN
Keywords: NIOEC, Interface Management, Portfolio, Oil Refineries, Mega Projects.

1-Abstract
Aiming at a higher gasoline production level and in order to enhance gasoline selfsufficiency in the country, and export the environmental friendly by-products with higher addedvalue instead of raw crude oil, NIOEC1 decided to de-bottleneck and revamp the existing refineries
and construct several new oil refineries; in platform of several mega oil refinery projects.
Most of the mega oil refineries programs are managing in the form of multi-projects
environment with different Contractors which create several challenges which are fundamentally
different from a single project.
Recent mega oil-refineries projects in Iran have all experienced significant delay during
execution phase which negatively impact the relation between time, cost, scope, quality, and
resources. There are many reasons for these overruns, but based on some investigations and lessonslearned; one of the most important factors is poor interface management and coordination between
different project parties during execution phase.
The objective of this paper is to create a comprehensive road map dealing with interface
management subjects at the beginning of the project life cycle (i.e.: Front-End Loading), in order to
properly identify and mitigate the potential causes, and prevent any scope creep in the next project
phases.
1

National Iranian Oil Engineering and Construction Company

1

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

In this paper, the top ten most causes of interface problems and their respective impacts on execution of
the mega oil-refineries projects will be identified by using a quantitative research method.

The result of the research is the generation of a dynamic interface management plan to
be used and implemented by Owners in order to effectively manage the common problems and
issues related to interface management of mega oil-refineries projects of Iran. The generated
interface management plan is a generic tool that can be easily customized in order to be used
for any other mega oil, gas, and petrochemical projects.

2-Introduction
A megaproject (sometimes also called "major program") is an extremely large-scale investment
project. Megaprojects are typically defined as costing more than US$1 billion and attracting a lot of
public attention because of substantial impacts on communities, environment, and budgets {1}.
Construction and management work of a mega project is normally divided into several packages
and each package comprises of several projects that are running parallel to each other. Each project is
designed and constructed by a number of local and international companies and involves many vendors
and suppliers from different countries. Sometimes mega construction projects are called as programs.
Management of programs is not only complex but also somehow difficult.
Mega oil refineries projects of Iran require an estimated Capital Expenditure (i.e.: CAPEX)
more than 2-3 billion Euros. Limitations such as Embargo, Contractor s financial status, experiences,
resources (e.g.: manpower, construction equipment, etc.), work load, and Owner s and Contractor s risk
strategies have caused mega oil refineries programs to be divided into smaller projects and being
undertaken in a multi-project environment. Turner and Speiser [1] contend that by far the greatest
proportion of project activity takes place within portfolios, or programs. Payne [2] estimates that up to
90% by value of all projects are carried out in a multi-project context of some sort.
Oil refineries projects involve many parties; for example Owner, Licensors, Basic Designer,
Detail Designer, Construction Contractors, Sub-Contractors, Vendors that create different interface
problems such as ineffective communications, poor cooperation, hidden agenda, and lack of trust. All
those problems cause delays, difficulty in resolving claims, cost overruns, litigations, and sometimes
compromise project quality. All interface problems should be communicated and solved carefully and
urgently by mutual cooperation, correct communication, and proper coordination between different
project parties.
Interface management failures have occurred for years, but came to a harsh light with the Three
Mile Island nuclear incident in 1979 when it was found that people in key positions made assumptions
without checking with one another, which ultimately led to the disaster. Investigations into other disasters
have highlighted interface management failure as the root cause in the Piper Alpha, Exxon Valdez, and
Phillips Pasadena accidents [3].
Some studies discussed the interface problems between project parties, including Designers and
Contractors [4], [5], Contractors and Sub-Contractors [6], [7], Owners and maintenance Contractors [8],
as well as common interface problems among various construction parties [9].
Unfortunately, the importance of interface issues and the need of interface management and
coordination of the mega oil projects have not received proper attention in Iran from both Owner and
Basic Designer at the front-end loading of the project cycle and at the early phase of the construction by
Construction Contractors/Sub-Contractors.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

In this paper, the top ten most important causes of interface problems ( and their respective
impacts on the projects) between parties, including Designers and Contractors, Contractors and SubContractors, Owners/PMC and Designers/Contractors, as well as common interface problems among
various construction parties of the mega oil-refineries projects will be identified by using a quantitative
research method (This will be done by interviewing and distributing survey questionnaires and interviews
of about 70 senior and middle managers selected amongst Contractors, Consulting Engineers, PMC, and
Owner sides as the researchers statistical society.
Finally, this study will develop a dynamic interface management plan based on analysis of
responses for using project participants and implementation which has been requested by Owner to
improve and manage effectively the common problems and subjects related to interface management of
mega oil-refineries projects of Iran. This study addresses application of an effective interface management
plan in terms of an applicable project job specification for improvement and management of different
interface issues among design and construction disciplines (i.e.: mechanical, instrumentation, civil,
electrical, etc) of oil refineries mega projects. The generated interface management plan is generic since it
can be easily customized in order to use in any other mega oil, gas, and petrochemical projects.

3. Problem Statement

National Iranian Oil Engineering and Construction Company (NIOEC) plans to construct some
new oil refineries and upgrade most of the existing oil refineries, in terms of a portfolio of construction
mega projects, aiming at a higher production level of gasoline and other clean and environmental friendly
products, gasoline self-sufficiency, and exporting more valuable by-products instead of raw crude oil.
However, recent mega oil-refineries construction projects in Iran which are executing in a multi-project
environment with multiple and many Contractors working in a single program have all experienced poor
interface management which led to schedule overruns and negatively impacted the balance between time,
cost, scope, quality, and resources of the projects.
Construction of mega oil refineries programs within a multi-project environment are
distinguished by extraordinary involvement and entanglement of many Contractors and due to Owner s
policies in some cases, some projects are selected as lump sum and fast track nature. The multi-project
environment causes diversities between the projects in terms of contract type or pricing arrangement
which made many difficulties for project parties, especially for the Owner.
Considering the above, an effective and dynamic interface management technique is essential to
find, identify, communicate, record, monitor, solve, and manage all interface issues between different
project parties.
France [10] states that interface management is useful shorthand to describe how companies work
with each other in the design, manufacture, and construction of the project. Chen [11] presents a multiperspective approach that systematically explores comprehensive cause factors for various interface
issues.
According to some investigations done by writers in different ongoing mega oil refineries
projects, there are much unclear interface information between different project parties, which created
many problems for the project; since each Contractor usually executes his own work and do not pay
attention or share necessary information with others.
Since, there is no suitable and effective tool to help the Owner to manage interface problems
between different Contractors, therefore the primary objective of this study is to identify the main top ten

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

causes of the interface problems and develops a dynamic interface management plan for using project
participants, accordingly.

4- Research Goal and Objectives

In mega oil refineries projects which are under execution by NIOEC; definition, identification,
communication, recording, monitoring, controlling, and managing the different interface events and
problems is critical; shortening the construction phase of the project; even for a single day and preventing
delaying in start up and production of the oil refinery will save significant amounts to needed for
importing gasoline and gas oil to respond the local demand.
The main purpose for conducting this study is to develop a dynamic interface management plan
for using project participants and implementation which has been requested by the Owner to improve and
effectively manage the common problems and issues related to interface management of mega oilrefineries projects of Iran.
The main objectives of this research include (1) identification, evaluation, and assessment of the
interface management problems of the different ongoing oil refineries mega projects; (2) classification of
the main interface problems and the top ten causes of the interface management problems; (3) determine
the respective effects on project completion,(4) provision of applicable recommendations to the project
parties, and (5) developing a dynamic interface management plan for using project participants and
implementation which has been requested by the Owner to improve and effectively manage the common
problems and issuess related to interface management of mega oil-refineries projects of Iran.

5-Research Methodology
For this research, the undertaken methodology is composed of the following steps:
Step-1: An intensive literature review and background research related to the interface
management of the mega projects has been done.
Step-2: Investigation and examination of the interview results of three empirical questionnaires
were developed and then they were distributed between seventy managers and professionals
amongst the Contractors, Consultant Engineers, PMC, and the Owner of an oil refinery mega
program which had been divided into ten smaller projects and were undertaken in a multi-project
environment mainly because of required estimated Capital Expenditure (i.e.: CAPEX) , more
than 3.4 billion Euros, and due to some limitations such as Embargo, Contractor s financial
abilities, experiences, resources (e.g.: manpower, construction equipment, etc.), work load, and
Owner s and Contractor s risk strategies. The questionnaires examine the respondents opinion
and attitude by using simple and open questions.
In order to verify the completeness of the questionnaires to represent of the causes of the interface
management and their effects on the mega oil refinery projects, a small survey was conducted by a face to
face interview with five senior managers and experts who had worked in the biggest gas refinery project
located in Assaluyeh port, south of Iran during 2004 to 2008.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

5-1-Questionnaire Design
The main goal of this research is to investigate, identify, elaborate, communicate record,
categorize, and prioritize causes of interface problems and developing an effective tool for better interface
management and coordination of the oil refineries mega projects. To achieve this goal, three different
questionnaires were used for gathering the research data . In the first questionnaire, the industry
professionals were asked the following simple questions:
1) What are the main interface problems and respective causes of the Iranian oil refineries mega
projects? Please list based on their importance.
2) What are their impacts (effects) on project completion?
3) What do you suggest to manage interface problems of the Iranian oil refineries mega projects
listed in question one, in an effective manner?
The second questionnaire included the list of recognized causes of interface problems of the mega
oil refinery projects. These causes were categorized into seven different groups based on factors of
interface problems of the mega oil refinery projects: factors related to (1) Owner, (2) Project, (3)
Contractor, (4) Consultant, (5) Engineering, (6) Procurement, and (7) External Issues.
The purpose of the second questionnaire was to determine frequency of occurrence, severity of
the each cause on project delay, and importance of the identified causes on project interface problems. For
each cause/factor, three questions were asked as follow:
1. What is the Frequency of Occurrence for this cause?
2. What is the Severity of this cause on project delay?
3. What is the Importance of this cause on project interface problem?
All of them were categorized on a four-point scale. Frequency of occurrence is categorized as follow:
always, often, sometimes, and rarely (on 4 to 1 point scale). Similarly, degree of severity and importance
were categorized as follows: extreme, great, moderate, and little (on 4 to 1 point scale).

6-Literature Review
6-1- Mega Projects, Communication, and Delays
Communication refers to the information exchange between entities and according to
PMBOK1(1) Guide (Project Management Institute (PMI), 2004). Communication Management is the
timely and appropriate generation, collection, distribution, storage, retrieval, and ultimate disposition of
project information.
A research [12] shows the major causes of delay in construction projects. The factors related to
communication and coordination is considered as critical causes of delay and totally are about 13% of all
the causes. Based on another research [13], inadequate communication is considered to be the third most
critical reason of low productivity and consequently extensive delays and idle time. Dawood, Akinsola,
1

Project Management Body of Knowledge

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

and Hobbs [14] noted, Two-thirds of the construction problems were caused by inadequate coordination
and inefficient means of communication of project information and data. It is clear that integration of the
design and construction processes alone cannot improve productivity and performance without an
improved communication and efficient means of exchanging information .

6-2-Definition of the Interfaces

There are many definitions for interfaces, for example Lin [15], Pe [16], and Wu [17] believe that
interfaces exist within the occasion, processes, systems, elements, and equipments, while Wang [18], Ye
[19], and Ku [20] define the interface as a dimension between two firms or organizations that can
mutually influence each other.
With regard to the oil refinery projects, interfaces would be appeared between different
Contractors, Owner and Contractors, Engineering team and Contractors, Contractors and SubContractors, Contractors and Manufacturers, and within different disciplines such as electrical,
mechanical, civil, instrumentation, process, etc.
The use of the interface concept in the context of project management followed the development
of the system approach, which defined organizations as systems of mutually dependent variables [21].
Thus, projects are made of sub-projects whose interfaces are necessary to determine if integration can be
achieved (2).

6-3- Classification of the Interfaces

Interfaces arise from division of the work into parts executed by different people or organizations
(3). Interfaces can be "internal", if the work conducted is done with one organization, or "external", if
different organizations collaborate [22]. Other researchers [21]; (3); [22] explained that interfaces can be
classified as follow:
Time interfaces that are triggers conditioning the transition from a certain kind of activity
to another,
Geographical interfaces that separate on-site and off-site work,
Technical interfaces that set the limits of a system's sub-components,
Organizational interfaces that keep human groups or persons apart.
Morris (2) proposed two main interface types: static interfaces and dynamic interfaces. Stuckenbtuck (3)
proposed three main interfaces: personal interfaces, organizational interfaces, and system interfaces.
Pavitt and Gibb [23] proposed three main interface types: physical interfaces, contractual
interfaces, and organizational interfaces. Physical interfaces are the actual physical connections between
two or more building elements or components. Contractual interfaces are the groupings of work elements
into distinct work packages to suit the availability of the design information. Organizational interfaces are
the interactions between various participants in a construction project.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

6-4- Interfaces Management

Based on the definition and classification of the interfaces, there are many interfaces between
project parties of any kind of construction projects. Thus, the concept of interface management becomes
important. Interface management is the systematic control of communication supporting a process
operation [22]. Interface management has been proven to address project complexity and allows for a
dynamic and well-coordinated construction project system [11]. The critical relationship between
interface management and project success is developed so constantly in literature (2), (3), Lock, (4),
Patrick, (5), Delmon, (6), [23].
Ku [20] proposed five different perspectives in order to analyze interface management, namely,
"contract interface", "technology interface", "monitor interface", "execution integration interface", and
"the interacting behavior in the interface".
Based on a review of the literature and a pilot study of interviews among various construction
parties, Yu-Cheng Lin [24] proposed interface management procedure includes interface finding,
interface identifying, interface communicating, interface recording, and interface closing. Each phase is
briefly outlined in the following table:
Table-1: Proposed Interface Management Procedure [24]
Description
Interface finding is the checking for new or existing interface events related
Interface Finding
to projects.
Interface identifying ensures that the identified interfaces are consistent with
Interface Identifying
all relational participants.
Interface communicating is the process of requesting, responding to and
Interface Communicating
tracing processes among relational participants.
Interface recording is all information recording processes related to the
Interface Recording
identified interface event.
Interface closing is the final closing action when the interface event is
Interface Closing
reconfirmed without further identification or tracing.
Phase

Chua [25] proposed to use the work breakdown structure (WBS) concept to improve work
interface management. Interface management is an information-intensive task in which available and
useful information is extremely useful to related participants [24].
Interface management is defined as "the management of common boundaries between people,
systems, equipment, or concepts" [26]. In the civil engineering field, Wideman[27] provides two similar
definitions for interface management: (1) " The management of communication, coordination, and
responsibility across a common boundary between two organizations, phases, or physical entities which
are independent"; and (2) "managing the problems that often occur among people, departments, and
disciplines rather than within the project team itself."
This paper uses the definition of interface management within oil refineries mega projects as: The
management boarders and boundaries between different project players, including designers and
Contractors, Contractors and sub-Contractors, Owners and Licensors, Owners and designers, Owners and
Contractors as well as common interface problems among various construction parties to enhance
management of the resources, costs, schedules, safety, risks, contracts, and systems in order to created a
dynamic, organized, and active environment during project execution of oil refineries mega projects.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

7- Research Findings and Analysis of Responses

7-1- Respondents Characteristics
A face to face interviewing of the five senior managers and professionals (who worked in biggest
gas refinery project located in Assaluyeh port south of Iran during project execution during 2004 to 2008)
has been taken.
Totally seventy questionnaires were distributed between Contractors, Consultant Engineers,
PMC, and Owner of an oil refinery mega program which is divided into ten smaller projects and were
undertaken in a multi-project environment. The characteristics of the respondents are summarized in the
following table:
Table-2: Characteristics of the Respondents
Owner
Contractors
Consultants/PMC
Distributed Questionnaires
15
40
15
Grade
1,2
1,2
Experience (Company)-Years
Over 50
Between 15-30
Between 10-20
Participated Consultants-Years
10-35
10-30
10-30
Past Experience in Mega Projects
Yes
Somehow
Somehow
Organization
Public-Private Joint Project
Private
Private
Note: Simple random sampling was used to select each company representative from a list.

7-2- Interface Problems

With reference to the gathered information by questionnaire No.1 and interview with industrial
professionals, the interface problems on project based on different viewpoints of Owners, Contractors,
and Consultants/PMC were identified, as follow:
Unclear Tie-In Points (Coordinates/ Locations)
Missed Tie-In Points (Coordinates/ Locations)
Poor Communication between Project Parties
Unclear or Un-defined(or poor defined) Responsibilities/Scope of each parties at Tie-In
Points in:
Engineering
Procurement (Material Supply)
Construction
Test
Inspection
Lack of Management/Coordination Procedure
Unclear or no definition for internal and external interfaces
Undefined external supplier

7-3- Causes of Interface Problems

With reference to the gathered information by questionnaire No.1 and interview with industrial
professionals, causes of interface problems based on different viewpoints of Owners, Contractors, and
Consultants/PMC were collected, clarified, analyzed, tabulated, grouped, and categorized into the seven
groups as shown in Table-3. Then, in the next stage for each cause/factor three questions were asked as
follow by using another questionnaire (Questionnaire No.2):
1. What is the frequency of occurrence for this cause?
2. What is the severity of this cause on project delay?
3. What is the importance of this cause on the project interface problem?

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Table-3: List of Identified Sources of Interface Problems based on Industrial Professionals Opinion and Idea
No
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

Cause/Source of Interface Problem

Change Order Issued by Owner
Owner Late Design Approval
Poor Owner s Communication and Coordination with Other Parties
Poor and Slow Owner s Decision Making Process
Work Suspension by Owner
Incomplete and Unclear Scope Definition
Lack of Key Deliverables such as Internal and External Interface List, and Interface
Management Plan in FEED Package
Joint-Ownership Structure (Governmental-Private Structure)
Delay in Owner Material Supply
Owner Late in Progress Payment to Contractor
Owner Late Decision for Breaking the Program into the Smaller Projects
Owner Late Decision for Hiring Qualified Project Management Consultant
Selected Contract Type (EPC, EP Only, Construction Only)
Lack of Effective Liquated Damage
Type of Selected Tendering Policy(Lowest Price Bidder)
Poorly Written Contract
Lack of Project Sponsor s Supervision
Delay in Project Completion
Cultural Differences (Self-Interest Perspective, Bias, etc.) between Parties
Discrepancies or Mistakes in Engineering Deliverables (Basic or Detail)
Late Issuance of Engineering Key Deliverables
Insufficient and Unclear Detail in Engineering Deliverables(Basic or Detail)
Lack of Experience in Engineering Team
Low Quality of the Prepared FEED Package by Basic Designer
Complexity in Design due to Nature of the Mega Projects
Contractors Poor Planning and Scheduling
Poor Contractor s Communication and Coordination with Other Parties
Low Accuracy in Project Cost Estimation
Contractor Late Mobilization during any Project Phase
Delay due to Sub-Contractors Work Performance
Lack of Experience in Contractor s/ Sub-Contractors Technical Team
Contractor s/ Sub-Contractors Key Manpower Turnover
Contractor s/Sub-Contractors Unfamiliarity and Lack of Previous Experience with Oil
Refineries Mega Projects
Contractor s/Sub-Contractors Unfamiliarity and Lack of Previous Experience with Owner s
Needs
Contractor s Unfamiliarity and Lack of Previous Experience with Local Law and Regulations
Re-Work due to Construction Mistakes by Contractors/Sub-Contractors
Consultant Late Mobilization during any Project Phase
Lack of Experience in Consultant s Technical Team
Consultant s Key Manpower Turnover
Consultant Unfamiliarity and Lack of Previous Experience with Oil Refineries Mega Projects
Consultant Unfamiliarity and Lack of Previous Experience with Owner s Needs
Consultant Unfamiliarity and Lack of Previous Experience with Local Law and Regulations
Poor Consultant s Communication and Coordination with Other Parties
Delay in Evaluating and/or Approving Change Order Requested by Owner
Delay in Approving Key Engineering Deliverables
Poor and Slow Consultant s Decision Making Process

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Category
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Contractors
Contractors
Contractors
Contractors
Contractors
Contractors
Contractors
Contractors
Contractors
Contractors
Contractors
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant

Table-2 (Continued): List of Identified Sources of Interface Problems based on Industrial Professionals
Opinion and Idea
No
Cause/Source of Interface Problem
Category
47 Joint-Venture Structure of the Consultant due to Size of Program
Consultant
48 Conflict between Consultant and Design Team
Consultant
49 Material Shortage due to Worldwide Work Load
Procurement
50 Delay in Material Procurement
Procurement
51 Delay in Procurement due to Material Variety and Selection
Procurement
52 Lack of an Effective Information System for Material Tracing
Procurement
53 Bureaucracy and Complicated Material Procurement Process
Procurement
54 Changes in Type, Specification, Quantity of the Material
Procurement
55 Delay and Late Shipment of the Material
Procurement
56 Damage of the Procured Material
Procurement
57 Unclear Responsibility of Scope of Supply for Material
Procurement
58 Shortage and Unqualified of Labor/Workforce
External
59 Impacts of Sub-Surface Condition (i.e.: Soil, Water level, etc.)
External
60 Accident during Construction
External
61 Change of Governmental Regulations and Laws
External
62 Weather Conditions at Construction Site
External
63 Delay in Obtaining Permit
External
64 Price Escalation of Material and Labor
External
65 Embargo/ US Sanction
External

7-3-1-Frequency of Interfaces Problems Causes:

The top ten frequent sources of interface problems according to Owner s, Consultant s, and
Contractor s opinion are gathered. From Owner point of view, the most frequent causes of interface
problems were mainly related to the Contractors and Sub-Contractors. Owners believed that lack of
experience in Contractor s/ Sub-Contractors technical team, Contractors poor planning and scheduling,
Contractor s/Sub-Contractors unfamiliarity and lack of previous experience in oil refineries mega
projects are the three highest frequents of interface problems causes. However, Contractors/SubContractors indicated that the most frequent causes of interface problems related to the Owner s poor
management during Front-End Loading Phase which are Owner late decision for dividing the program
into the smaller projects, and lack of key deliverables such as Internal and External interface list, and
Interface Management Plan within FEED Package. Also, Contractors believed that Owner late design
approval was the third highest frequents of interface problems causes. It was found that Owner s Project
Management Consultant had the same idea as Contractors regarding the first two highest frequents of
interface problems causes. However, Consultant believed that awarding the project to the lowest bidder s
financial proposal was the third highest frequent of interface problems causes. It is worth mentioning that
most of the Owner s representatives believed that Owner s late decision for dividing the program into the
smaller projects at the end of Front-End Loading Phase, and lack of key deliverables such as Internal
and External interface list, and Interface Management Plan within FEED package have significant
role on creation of the project interface events.

10

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

7-3-2-Severity of Interfaces Problems Causes:

The top ten sever sources of interface problems according to Owner s, Consultant s, and
Contractor s opinion are found. Owner believed that the most sever causes of interface problems were
related to the Contractors. Owners believed that key manpower turnover, and lack of Contractor s
previous experiences were the two main sever sources. Owner reminded that Owner s late decision for
dividing the program into the smaller projects at the end of Front-End Loading Phase , and lack of key
deliverables such as Internal and External interface list, and Interface Management Plan within
FEED package were sever sources on creation of the project interface issues. However, again both
Contractors/Sub-Contractors and Consultants underlined that the most two sever causes of project
interface problems were Owner s late decision for dividing the program into the smaller projects, lack of
key deliverables such as Internal and External interface list, and Interface Management Plan within
FEED package. They indicated that poor and slow Owner s decision making process was another sever
sources of project interface problems.

7-3-3-Importance of Interfaces Problems Causes:

The top ten important causes of interface problems according to Owner s, Consultant s, and
Contractor s opinion are identified. There were some causes that were common between different parties
and some causes were common between two parties. It is worth to mention that lack of key deliverables
such as Internal and External interface list, and Interface Management Plan within FEED Package
were common causes between all parties as key sources on creation of the project interface issues.

7-4-The Top Ten Interfaces Problems Causes:

The top ten causes of project interface problems based on all industry professionals opinions and
ideas which were collected, clarified, analyzed, tabulated, grouped, categorized, and prioritized in terms
of the number of times quoted by respondents as follow:
Owner s Late Decision for Dividing the Program into the Smaller Projects
Lack of Key Deliverables such as Internal and External Interface List, and Interface
Management Plan within FEED Package
Owner s Late Decision for Hiring Qualified Project Management Consultant
Change Order Issued by Owner
Incomplete and Unclear Scope Definition
Poor and Slow Owner s Decision Making Process
Owner s Late in Progress Payment to Contractor
Poor Contractor s Communication and Coordination with Other Parties
Contractors Poor Planning and Scheduling
Consultant s Delay in Approving Key Engineering Deliverables
As it is clearly mentioned, lack of an Interface Management Plan , and Internal and
External Interface List as a key deliverable of the Front-End-Loading Phase were introduced as the
main cause of interface problems of the studied oil refinery mega project.

11

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Industry professionals made many valuable recommendations for better management of the
interface problems of the oil refinery mega projects which were used for developing the Interface
Management Plan and were reflected in the recommendation part of this article, as well.

7-5-Impacts of Interface Problems Causes:

With reference to the gathered information by questionnaire No.1 and interview with industrial
professionals, the impact of the causes of interface problems on project based on different viewpoints of
Owners, Contractors, and Consultants/PMC were collected, clarified, analyzed, and prioritized, as follow:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Time overrun in terms of delay,

Cost overrun,
Quality impacts,
Disputes between different project parties,
Arbitration,
Suspension of the Work or Contract Termination (rarely),
Litigation (rarely).

However, the empirical relationship between causes and effects of the interface problems needs to be
investigated in future studies to confirm the result of the gathered information by questionnaire.

8- Similar Research Findings for Interface Issues

Chen [11] investigated causes of interface issues from six interrelated perspective including
people/participants, methods/processes, resources, documentation, project management, and environment,
which were shown in the form of C&E diagram invented by Kaoru Ishikawa in 1968 . It is a graphical
tool that helps to identify, sort, and display potential or real root causes (factors) of a specific effect,
problem, or condition.

9-Recommendation
9-1-General Recommendations
According to the results of the research, interviews, and distributing questionnaires to many
professionals who have extensive experiences in project management of the oil, gas and petrochemical
industries in Iran and based on the lessons-learned from a comprehensive study of several articles in
similar projects as mentioned in the literature review, the following items can be recommended to all
parties in order to improve the performance of the interface management of the oil refineries mega
projects:
1) As it has been shown in Figure-1, the interface management process including interface finding,
identification, communicating, recording, and closing shall be done during Front-End loading
phase of each project. The key deliverable at the end of this phase will be an Interface
Management Plan , and Internal and External interface list. (Figure-2)
2) A detail Interface Management Plan (Procedure) for Oil Refinery was prepared by writers
based on results of this research. Writers provided an effective Interface Management Plan for
oil refinery in terms of an applicable project job specification for improvement and management
of different interface issues among design and construction disciplines (i.e.: mechanical,

12

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

3)

4)

5)

6)

instrumentation, civil, electrical, etc) of oil refineries mega projects. The generated interface
coordination plan is a dynamic procedure since it can be easily customized in order to use to any
other mega oil, gas, and petrochemical project.
Owner should give special attention to the following issues:
Decision for dividing the program into the smaller projects should be done by the end of
Front-End Loading phase with full assistance and supervision of the basic engineering
designer,
Key deliverables such as Internal and External interface list, and Interface
Management Plan to be prepared by basic engineering designer as key documents of
FEED Package for each program,
On time design approval and progress payment to Contractor, minimizing major change
orders to the contract requirements and work suspension which interfere the work, and
trying to completely and clearly define the scope of work and supply of each parties
especially at the tie-in points, adequate quality of the FEED package by basic designer,
proper expedition for issuance of engineering key deliverables, and inserting sufficient
and clear detail into the engineering deliverables.
Owner should use proper tools for evaluation and selection of the Contractors and not just
relying on the Contractor s lowest financial proposals, also past experiences, technical
expertise, sufficient resources(e.g.: manpower) and financial backup should be
considered as key parameters for evaluation and selection of the Contractors.
And finally, Owner should be able to make decisions immediately to solve any problem
related to the interface events that arise during the project execution.
Contractors should consider the following factors:
Clear understanding and familiarity of Owner s needs and local law and regulations, SubContractors evaluation and selection, early planning, scheduling, and monitoring for the
interface issues with other parties,
Upgrading and curing communication and coordination with other project parties,
reducing key manpower turnover, searching and applying lessons- learned of others, and
expediting mobilization process.
Consultant should look upon the following points:
Reducing conflict with design team and other Contractors, create mechanism to solve
project interface problems and disputes, expediting reviewing and approving the key
engineering deliverables, and try to be flexible with considering time, cost, and quality
together, expediting the design activities related to the interface issues,
Plan for weekly, bi-weekly, and monthly coordination meeting regarding project interface
issues, Clear understanding and familiarity of Owner s needs and local law and
regulations,
Generate a suitable computerized spreadsheet data base for interface issues of different
Contractors, and monitor and update the data base, accordingly, also consultant must
monitor the execution work closely and do necessary supervision and inspection at
appropriate time,
Do the risk study regarding interface risks especially those related to external issues and
strategic ones and give the advice on proper time to Owner.
Engineering party should concentrate to the following items:
Minimizing discrepancies or mistakes in engineering deliverables,
on time issuance of the key engineering deliverables, expediting the design activities
related to the interface issues,
Reducing conflict with other project parties, and to consider maximum constructability in
design by using 3D computerized modeling software.

13

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

7) Adding a position called Interface Manager with enough lead engineers for each discipline for the
project organization chart of each project party is highly recommended to be considered for each program
of the portfolio. Interface Manager should be reported directly to the project
manager.

14

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

9-2-Recommendation for Future Studies

The followings can be recommended for future studies:
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the generated Interface Management Plan (Procedure)
for Oil Refinery , by implementing it in some real oil refinery mega projects.
Similar study can be conducted in other oil refineries mega projects to find more
problems, impacts, causes and/or re-confirm the research findings of this study.
More detail study can be done to evaluate the effect of a specific cause of interface
problems on a specific project.
By increasing the number of interlocutors, a more detail analysis can be conducted by
calculating Frequency Index , Severity Index , and Importance Index by the formula
given in the Sadi A.Assaf s and Sadiq Al-Hejji s article [29].
The cause factors can also be analyzed based on research needs either by factor analysis
and multiple regression which were performed by Rong-Yau Huang [30] or C&E
diagram methods which were performed by Qian Chen [31].

10-Conclusion
In this research, interface problems, the main causes and their impacts (effects) on project
completion of the Iranian ongoing oil refineries mega projects were investigated. Totally, 70
questionnaires distributed between Contractors, Consulting Engineers, PMC, and the Owner of an oil
refinery mega project which was divided into ten smaller projects and was undertaken in a multi-project
environment. Based on the gathered information, the interface problems were identified, and 65 causes of
those interface problems were collected, clarified, analyzed, tabulated, grouped, and categorized into the
seven main groups as (1) Owner, (2) Project, (3) Engineering, (4) Contractor, (5) Consultant, (6)
Procurement, and (7) External Issues.
The top ten most interface problem causes were identified as: (1) Owner late decision for dividing
the program into the smaller projects, (2) lack of key deliverables such as Internal and External
interface list, and Interface Management Plan (Procedure) within FEED package, (3) Owner late
decision for hiring qualified project management consultant, (4) change order issued by Owner, (5)
incomplete and unclear scope definition, (6) poor and slow Owner s decision making process, (7) Owner
late in progress payment to contractor, (8) poor Contractor s communication and coordination with other
parties, (9) Contractors poor planning and scheduling, and (10) Consultant s delay in reviewing and
approving key engineering deliverables.
Also, the main effects of interface problems were identified as: (1) time overrun in terms of delay,
(2) cost overrun, (3) quality impacts, (4) disputes, (5) arbitration, (6) litigation (rarely), and (7)
termination (rarely).
In the next stage of the research for each cause/factor, three questions were asked by using
another questionnaire to determine frequency of occurrence, severity on project delay, and importance of
each cause. However, the empirical relationship between causes and effects of the interface problems
need to be investigated in future studies to confirm the result of gathered information by questionnaire.
Finally, applicable, proven, effective, possible, and logical suggestions considering indigenous
culture and situations to reduce and solve common interface problems associated with oil refinery mega
projects more provided in terms of general recommendations for four main project parties as (1) the
Owner, (2) Contractors, (3) Consultants, and (4) Engineering Companies and in addition due to Owner s
request. An effective and applicable Interface Management Plan (Procedure) was prepared for Oil
Refinery Mega Projects in terms of an applicable project job specification for helping the practitioners

15

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

(The Owner, Contractors, Engineering Parties, and Consultants) to improve and manage different
interface issues among design and construction disciplines (i.e.: mechanical, instrumentation, civil,
electrical, etc) of oil refineries mega projects effectively and immensely. The generated interface
management plan is a generic and applied procedure, since it can be easily customized in order to use to
any other mega oil, gas, and petrochemical project.
This research can help and facilitate academicians to conduct similar research and studies
anywhere around the world to identify causes and effects of interface problems in construction of the
mega projects, as well.

11- References:
Journals-papers:

[1]. Turner, JRand Speiser,A .Programme Managementand its Information Systems Requirements..,
International Journal of Project Management, 1992,pp. 10(4):196206.
[2]. Payne, JH.Management Of Multiple Simultaneous Project, International Journal Of Project
Management, 1995,pp. 13(3):1638.
[3].T.C; R.N; C.C; M.L; C.A.M; Interface Management for Subsea Sand Control Completions, Tools, Baker
Oil.2005,pp.Vol.1,No.1.pp6063
[4]. AlHammad, Aand Assaf, S. Design Construction Interface Problems in Saudi Arabi., Building
Research. And Information, 1992,pp. Vol.21,No.1,PP.6063.
[5]. AlMansouri. The Relationship between the Designerand the Contractor in Saudi (Al
Mansouri)Arabia. 1988.
[6]. AlHammad,A .Factors Affecting the Relationship between Contractorsandtheir SubContractors in
Saudi Arabia. J. Perf. Constr. Fac. ASCE, 1993,pp. Vol. 21, No. 5, pp194205.
[7]. Hinze, J and Andres, T.The ContractorSubcontractor Relationship: The Subcontractor's View, J.
Constr. Engrg. And Mgmt., ASCE . 1994, pp. Vol. 120, No. 2, pp. 274287.
[8]. AlHammad,A .Interface Problemsbetween Building Owners Designers, J. Pref. Constr. Fac., ASCE,
1996,pp. Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 123126.
[9]. AlHammad, A. Common Interface Problems Among Various Construction Parties. J. Pref. Constr.
Fac. ASCE, 2000, pp. pp. 7174.
[10]. France, G. Building Team Spirit. London : Proc., Building, The Builder Group, 1993.
[11]. Chen, Qian, Reichard, GeorgandBeliveau, Yvan.Multiperspective Approach to Exploring
Comprehensive Cause Factors for Interface Issues. J. Constr. Eng. Manage, 2008, pp. 134(6), 432441.

16

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

[12]. Sweis G., Sweis R., Abu HammadA. , Shaboul A. Delays in Construction Projects: The Case of
Jordan, International Journal of Project Management, 2007,pp. 26, 665674.
[13]. Hewage K.N., Ruwanpura J.Y. Carpentry Worker IssuesandEfficiencies Related to Construction
Productivity in Albertas Commercial Construction Projects. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33,
2006,pp. 10751089.
[14]. Dawood N., AkinsolaA. , Hobbs B. Development of Automated Communication of System for
Managing Site Information Using Internet Technology. Automation in Construction . 2002, pp. 11, 557
572.
[15]. Lin, X. L. The Practical Investigationof Interfaces in MRTS. s.l. : reports of technological transfer of
MRTS systems, 1997.
[16]. Pe, W. Z. Integration Management of Interface in MRTS Construction Project, SemiAnnual journal
of MRTS Technology, 2000, pp. No. 23, pp. 223236.
[17]. Wu, Y. Basic Requirement and Construction Interface of Escalator Equipment in MRTS Systems.
Semi Annual Journal of MRTS Technology, 2001, pp. No. 24, pp. 245264.
[18]. Wang, M. D.et al.The Applicationof Management Systemwithin Involved Parties in the
Construction Site. Construction Management Association of the Republic of China,1996 .
[19]. Ye, H. A. Improvement for Interface Management of Construction. First Construction Management
Academic Conference. 1999, pp. pp. 281289.
[20]. Ku, W. H. A Study of Establishing Lessons Learned Database for Contractor. s.l. : National Taiwan
University, 2000.
[21]. Wren, D. A. Interfaceand Interorganizational Coordination., Acad. Manage J, 1967,pp. 10(1), 69
81.
[22]. Healy, P. Interfaces." Project Management: Getting the Job done on Timeandin Budget.
Butterworth Heinemann, 1997,pp. 267278.
[23]. Pavitt, T.C and Gibb, A. G.F. Interfce Management within Construction: in Particular, Building
Faade. J. Constr. Eng Manage., ASCE, 2003, pp. Vol. 129, No. 1.
[24]. YuCheng, Lin. Developing Construction Network Based Interface Management System. J. Constr.
Engrg. And Mgmt., ASCE, 2009,pp. 477486.
[25].Chua, David K. H., Myriam, Godinot. Use of a WBS Matrix to Improve Interface Management in
Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Management, 2006,pp. 132(1),6779.

17

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

[26]. Nooteboom, U. Interface Management Improves onTime, onBudget Delivery of Mega Projects.
JPT Online, Societyof Petroleum Engineers. [Online] 2004. [Cited: Dec 10, 2004.]
[h p://www.spe.org/spe/jpt/jsp/jptmonthlysec on/0,2440,1104_1585_2737234_2740117,00.html].
[27]. Wideman, R.M. Wideman Compara ve Glossary of Project Management Terms,v3.1. [Online]
2002. [Cited: May 07, 2006.]h p://www.maxwideman.com/pmglossary/PMG_I03.htm.
[28]. Caglar, Josh and Connolly, Mike. Effective Management Exchange Through Improved
Communication. ABB Value Paper Series,2007.
[29]. Assaf, Sadi Aand AlHejji, Sadiq. Causes of Delay in Large Construction Projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 2006, pp. 349354.
[30]. . Huang, Rong Yau, etal. Factor Analysis OF Interface Problems Among Construction Parties A Case
Study Of MRT, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2008,pp. Vol. 16, No. 1, pp 5263.
[31]. T.C, et al. Interface Management for Subsea Sand Control Completions. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2005,pp. paper No:94937MS.
Books:
(1).Project Management Institute (PMI). A Guide to the Project Management Bodyof Knowledge
(PMBOK Guide). 3rd. Pennsylvania : Project Management Ins tute, Inc., 2004.
(2). Morris, P. W. G. ManagingProject Interfaces Key points for project success. [book auth.] D. I.
Cleland W.R.king. Project managementhandbook. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983, pp.336.
(3). Stuckenbruck, L. C. Integration: The Essential Function of Project Management. [book auth.] D. I.
Cleland and W. R. King. Project Management Handbook. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983, pp.
3758.
(4).Lock, D. Project Management. Gower, Hampshire, U.K. : Brook eld, Vt., 1996.
(5).Patrick, H.P. Interface," Getting the Jobdone on Timeandin Budget. Butterworth Heinemann,1997.
(6).Delmon, J. BOO/BOT Projects: A commercial and Contractual Guide. London : Sweet & Maxwell,
2000.
Websites:
{1}. Wikipedia. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/megaproject.

18

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

12- Acknowledgements
We are heartily thankful to our Professor, Dr. George F. Jergeas, professor of project management in the
Schulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary, for his guidance, encouragement, and
motivation during two main courses enabled us to develop this paper.
The authors also very grateful to all people who support us for this research project provided by all
interviewees, NIORDC, NIOEC,POGC, Ghods Niroo, Rahab Consultant Co., NDEC, NPC, NIORDC,
and MAPNA companies who are famous governmental and private Iranian companies.
Finally, the authors are also very grateful to their family, for their keen, committed, and warm
encouragement during the preparation of this article.

19

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com