4/7/03
|
Managing
Alliances in the
EPC Industry
by
Rob Handfield
|

|
In
the engineering project and construction (EPC)
industry, a different market environment exists
from many other industries. EPCs are responsible
for designing, constructing, and managing all
issues associated with major projects, including
chemical plants, power plants, and other large
facilities. Very often, this occurs in developing
countries where logistics is difficult and government
agencies in some cases corrupt or extremely
bureaucratic. Other characteristics that make
this industry difficult to manage include.
| |
High
complexity low commonality |
| |
Price,
price, price is the basis for decisions
not lowest total cost |
| |
In
the global market, risk is being pushed
on to EPC via fixed price contracts |
| |
Balance
of plant design starts after Tier 1 equipment
is selected |
| |
Customers
have strong supplier relationship and assign
equipment to EPC contractor |
| |
Customers
directed alliance supplier may not satisfy
EPC companys project risk profile
|
| |
Suppliers
can also be Owners or Competitors |
The ultimate owners of these projects
in many cases have a different set of priorities.
The problem is that every Owner has different
needs and wants to make changes to a standard
plant concept. Most importantly, the Owners want
a lower cost, but want the EPC to assume more
risk and meet a tighter schedule.
A recent study undertaken by MBA student Doug
Harper and a number of Owners and EPCs including
Bechtel, Shell Oil, and Chevron Texaco is underway.
Some of the additional constraints and challenges
in this environement include:
| |
Increasing
risk of the projects. |
| |
Paucity
of transactions. |
| |
Project
profit margin bottom line focus. Profit
maximization. Time to market is key
but initial price is the key order winner
not the longterm maintenance cost of the
plant. Utility customers look at total NPV
(maintenance, LCC). They want the same plant
that cost $1200/KW in 1984 done for the
same cost today |
| |
Suppliers
will take advantage when they can exert
leverage. Profit maximization. |
| |
Capacity
availability a key driver to the market
dymamics. Regulated (public) utilities also
look at price to see what they can afford
to buy. They need flexibility to move from
one supplier to the next to meet the Owners
requirements. Owners are usually locked
in with certain suppliers. |
| |
Oligopolistic
supply base is important issue. |
| |
Projects
2 to 4 year duration means a deal can easily
become stale. Owner financing (e.g. GE Capital)
may dictate equipment suppliers |
| |
Technology
change can leave you behind with the wrong
partner. |
| |
The
labor intensive nature of certain products/services
often leaves suppliers in developing countries
with a comparative advantage. |
This
traditional industry thinking is reflected in
some of the comments that Doug Harper learned
about when he interviewed multiple owners, suppliers,
and EPC companies in a project for Bechtel.
These comments reflect a risk averse nature,
and a resulting lack of commitment to any long-term
relationship between parties with the
belief that the market drives a traditional
bidding process that cannot be overcome. Clearly,
this industry is ripe for a new business model.
In this type of market environment, companies
are now beginning to look at Strategic Alliances
as a new way of doing business.
One company that has begun to examine this is
the British Aviation Authority. They have adopted
a fundamentally new approach to driving integration
across not only the EPC industry, but all of
the suppliers involved in this process. As they
begin to revamp their airport construction projects,
this new approach considers many more factors
beyond price, and goes into detailed long-term
contracts. The initial results from this strategy
have been promising.
In only one case was Doug able to find a model
of a long-term alliance relationship that worked
in the industry. The alliance was established
within Shell when it was determined that there
was an on-going need for a certain type of equipment.
It was also established that one supplier was
normally successful in obtaining contracts.
A series of discussions was started to establish
whether there was an opportunity to create an
alliance that would be good for both parties.
Initially it was necessary to determine how
trust would be established so that both parties
would be able to operate without fear of risk
(there had to be a management commitment). It
was necessary to establish a system whereby
pricing and some marketing information would
have to be available, at the same time the vendor
would have access to long range planning and
engineering at Shell. Next there was established
a system that would reward/share savings for
pre-established decisions by the owner. The
biggest thing that had to be created and established
was a trust between parties. It was also determined
that the alliance would be on-going, in other
words, it was constantly being worked by a set
group of people to involve/ make changes as
work progressed. As a higher comfort factor
evolved, the working of the process became easier
and more advantageous for both parties. For
the most part, when used, the degree of success
was high and very helpful for project purposes.
WHAT MAKES THIS WORK? There clearly must be
evidence that there is some system of cost savings
sharing which will benefit all. There must be
established some means of showing the client
that changes and costs resulting are fair and
not a means of gaining wealth. In all the client
must be able to see why this is the best route
and how he will be protected from pitfalls during
the process. At the same time, the supplier
must feel assured that his data/information
will not be exposed to competition.
Doug Harper will continue to work on this project
over the semester, and we will be posting some
of the results from the project later. Stay
tuned!
Sincerely,
Rob Handfield
|