A Real Critique of Advanced Work Packaging

Let’s talk about Advanced Work Packaging (AWP). You’ve probably heard it praised in conferences, training, and maybe even in some of the thickest books you’ve tried to muscle through. If you’ve been there, you know exactly what I mean. Those books are dense, technical, and often more confusing than helpful. My hope here is simple: let’s strip away the fluff, look at what works, and also be honest about where AWP stumbles.

First, a quick backdrop. In construction, one of the biggest problems we face is the lack of “tool time.” Studies show that workers spend as much as 40 percent of their day just looking for the things they need like tools, materials, drawings, or even just access. That is staggering. AWP’s central promise is to solve that problem by creating Installation Work Packages (IWPs) that bundle all of that together. In theory, by the time a trade partner is ready to install, every detail from materials to drawings to clear access is already handled.

Sounds good, right? It is, in concept. But here is where the critique comes in.

AWP starts by breaking a project into Construction Work Areas. That approach works fine in oil and gas, but in commercial construction it usually results in big, unwieldy batches. That kind of large batching is the opposite of what lean systems teach us. It slows things down rather than smoothing them out.

Another concern is the role of work face planners. In AWP, these are highly trained experts who create plans for the foremen. On paper, it is about removing constraints. In practice, it cuts out the very people who should be central to planning, the foremen themselves. Plus, good luck finding enough qualified work face planners for most commercial projects. Most teams already struggle to fill the planning roles they need, let alone add new layers of overhead.

Now, let’s be fair. There are things AWP gets right.
The focus on a path of construction is smart.
Bundling engineering, procurement, construction, and installation into connected packages makes sense.
Using 3D models, vendor data, and detailed task lists is powerful.
And ensuring trades have everything they need, constraint free, is absolutely the right goal.

But here is the truth. Most of this is not new. In commercial construction, we have been doing it already through prefabrication, modular pods, room kitting, and coordinated BIM efforts. Every time we prefab an MEP rack or kit a room, we are essentially creating a mini IWP. The difference is, we have been doing it in a way that actually works for our industry and does not require massive new overhead roles.

So here is my conclusion. AWP is not evil, and it is not useless. It just does not translate cleanly from oil and gas to commercial construction. The principles of clear packages, connected systems, and constraint free planning are solid. But the execution needs to fit the context.

That is why I believe Takt planning is the hub we should be leaning on. Takt naturally ties in the best elements of CPM, Last Planner, AWP, and Scrum. It zones projects properly, avoids the large batch trap, and keeps foremen and field leaders at the center of planning. In other words, it brings the benefits of AWP without the baggage.

So before you jump headfirst into implementing AWP on your project, pause. Think. Ask yourself if you are solving the real problem or adding unnecessary layers. Because what we want is not more complexity. What we want is smoother projects, happier teams, and work that actually flows.

Key Takeaway

Advanced Work Packaging offers some useful principles, but its large batch approach and heavy overhead make it impractical for most commercial projects. Lean systems like Takt bring the same benefits in a simpler and more effective way.