Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Facility Benchmarking Summary Report, 2005-2009

A set of metrics was developed for the Pharmaceutical sector, including both absolute and relative metrics, as shown in Tables 2 and 3. (BMM2009-10, p. 5)

{^widget|(widget_displayname)WatermarkImage|(name)WatermarkImage|(image)%7e%2fCII%2fmedia%2fPublications%2fBMM2009_10Table2-5.PNG%3fext%3d.png|(width)|(height)^}
{^widget|(widget_displayname)WatermarkImage|(name)WatermarkImage|(image)%7e%2fCII%2fmedia%2fPublications%2fBMM2009_10Table3.PNG%3fext%3d.png|(width)|(height)^}

Figure 10 shows that bulk manufacturing projects using Construction Management (CM) at Risk had the lowest unit cost while, for both secondary manufacturing and laboratory projects, Design-Build showed the advantage over other project delivery methods. (BMM2009-10, p. 20)

One of the major differences between pharmaceutical/biotechnology facilities and other capital projects is that pharmaceutical facilities consume a significant amount of resources during start-up due to the strict requirements of IQ, OQ, and PQ. Figure 12 presents the average IQ thru OQ Duration/Number of IQ and OQ Protocols by pharmaceutical project type.  (BMM2009-10, p. 22)

Compares actual cost with estimated cost. Based on the pharmaceutical/biotechnology projects in the CII database, pharmaceutical benchmarking participants have reduced their project cost growth substantially over the years. Figure 13 illustrates this trend for all projects, grouped according to the year in which they were started.
(BMM2009-10, p. 22)

PDRI is used to define how well the project scope was defined. A PDRI score of less than 200 is considered well defined – the lower the score the better the project scope definition. Figure 14 shows that the projects with a PDRI score of less than 200 experienced a significantly lower cost growth than the projects with a PDRI score greater than 200. (BMM2009-10, p. 23)

Project schedule growth measures the difference between actual schedule and planned schedule. See Figure 16, to notice a steadily improved schedule performance. (BMM2009-10, p. 24)

CII BM&M measures cost and schedule impact by a ratio of approved change order cost to Total Installed Cost (TIC), and approved schedule change to actual project duration, respectively. The projects with a PDRI score of less than 200 had a much lower cost and schedule impact due to change than did their counterparts. See Figures 18 and 19 for more understanding. (BMM2009-10, p. 26)

Over the years, the average TRIR for pharmaceutical/biotechnology facility projects has fluctuated, and the trend is not clear. See Figure 21, to notice that it is not going at a steady flow- the red dotted line is not straight. The years marking the x-axis in the figure refer to the mid-point of construction. Meanwhile, the overall CII membership reported a continuous improvement of TRIR from 1.02 to 0.68 during the same time period (CII 2008). (BMM2009-10, p. 27)

Previous research has determined that modularization potentially reduces project schedules and cost, and improves construction safety if used appropriately. In fact, the pharmaceutical database supports this finding. Since bulk manufacturing projects use more modularization, they tend to be built faster in terms of project duration (weeks)/1000 SF, as shown in Figure 27. (BMM2009-10, p. 29)