Сложная программа проектов: сроки, риски, мотивация менеджеров проектов

626 views
537 views

Published on

Новую программу проектов в компании SanDisk (производство flash-накопителей) неформально назвали «гориллой» из-за ее объема (более 5000 задач). Продукт нужно вывести на рынок к жестко заданной дате. Как выполнить такую программу и как замотивировать менеджеров проектов? На этот вопрос ответил Эрик Ютеваал (Канада), автор инструмента «Критический путь 2.0», позволяющего с успехом реализовывать такие проекты.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
626
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
34
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • PMI 2012 North-America Congress in Vancouver (Oct 2012):A = 2                      B = 20C = 3                      D = 14
  • REMARK: isn’t this a beautiful curtain of cross-project dependencies that makes all detail tasks invisible. In the 1990s, the screen resolution was so poor that the entire screen would turn black!
  • REMARKS: Delegate: more accurate model if scheduler trained wellMore than 2,000 tasks: a schedule with 2,000 tasks in it is a full-time job!!
  • QUESTION: which of these three were our biggest headaches? Raise your hand, whom of you think it was the 1st, 2nd , 3rd? Unexpectedly, it was nr 1!!!! This was because subproject schedulers scheduled for different reasons:Program delivery: conforms to checklist in my bookManaging resources: WBS not deliverable-oriented, resource vacations inserted as “tasks”, incomplete logic, logic on summary tasks. At SanDisk, the SW guys had schedules like this and were not willing to change them.Portfolio tracking: only needs to produce performance indicators (and explaining detail)
  • REMARK: you never know where the program Critical Path runs; we have been surprised more than once, particularly when you start simulating the IMS!
  • REMARK: 1. Is what most program managers are currently doing; very labor intensive, very error prone, often lack of trust in the overall program schedule
  • REMARK everybody is doing this: coding/labeling the handoff deliverables in the subproject schedules; “What do you need from whom?”We recommend using descriptive labels (rather than cryptic codes), but they have to be unique (create master list!!)
  • REMARK Each deliverable handoff becomes one line item in this spreadsheet; the spreadsheet becomes the dashboard for the program manager!
  • Xxxx can we find picture of Teamplanner view with optimized workloads (no empty spaces)?REMARK: You can see when resources are perfectly balanced when there are many Critical Paths that are equally critical.
  • DEMO resource-constrained IMS??!!
  • Data we are showing here is from Proof of Concept files only; obviously we could not present real-life data!PoC was realistic data but not real data.
  • REMARK the green line depicts the leveling delay
  • REMARK:MS Project does not do Resource Calendar and Task Calendar exceptions, only Standard (Project Calendar) exceptions! As per Oct 2012, CCP does the most-Critical Path but not (yet) the obscure situations of the Longest Path analysis (SNET on late deliveries without links to earlier tasks); does Primavera do these?????
  • REMARK Al programmed the Monte Carlo simulation in his own time in the evenings; he is a brilliant guy! We needed this because in a workload leveled IMS, the picked durations need to be entered into the schedule, the workloads need to be leveled by MS Project and the duration can then be determined. We need to add still that it calls our CCP tool to find the RCP in each scenario, so we can determine how often each task appears on program critical path.
  • REMARK:CSF = Critical Success FactorFor schedule reviews: several iterations were necessary!!Pilot program: Started courses in June 2012, first schedule reviews in July, first integration in mid October!!
  • REMARK typically, we do this every week!
  • Monte Carlo uses 50% and 90% range of dates!! SanDisk calls:50% = Aggressive But Achievable (ABA)90% = High Confidence (HC)NOTE: We follow Critical Chain in that:We use workload-leveled Critical PathWe try to prevent multi-taskingNOTE: We divert from Critical Chain because : We use ABA andHC estimates (not just 50% confidence level)We use Monte Carlo simulation to determine buffer we need (not just 50% of Critical Path duration)!We only use one buffer and do not insert buffers on secondary, non-critical pathsWe do no ALAP scheduling
  • What was the initial forecasted date in the schedule? Oct 7, 2013 (which is off-the-chart; not listed) !!
  • Al: does the 542 cal. days include the 72d leveling delay AND the 85d program buffer? No
  • NOTE these are made-up numbers from Proof of Concept files!
  • REMARK:A single project is “an integrated network with closed ends”A subproject is “many strands of insanity” or “many strands that are loosely coupled”
  • REMARK as you can see an IMS is very different from a single project
  • REMARK Single, Isolated Project with No Resources: whether you need Critical Path 1.0 or Critical Path 2.0 depends on if you use advanced features in the scheduling application or not (calendars, constraints, elapsed durations/lags, cross-project dependencies and workload leveling).
  • REMARK: you can see that this (small) program: started 2 days late (buffer went from 8 to 6: lost 2 days of buffer right at the start) and consumes the buffer faster than planned, Extrapolation forecasts the program to be finished at -4: 4 days lateNOTE: these charts are produced by CCP; we can produce one chart for entire program or multiple charts per program: one for each major milestone
  • REMARK:Functions = “departments”We are NOT using baseline schedules because things change too often and we needed more dynamic way to keep track of the dynamic program! Baselines require too tedious maintenance!
  • REMARKS: WRT:2. two-versions-of-the-truth problem: aim at One-Version-Of-The-Truth always!!3. Recommend to address the differences in scheduling styles: Common scheduling classes, central definition of major milestones, and pre-defined WBS levels across all functions4. minimize cross-project dependenciesOther lessons learned:The Critical Path can be found across multiple files and in (automatically) workload-leveled schedulesList of “Handoff” deliverables ideally needs to be defined first before scheduling effort is started (Milestones): who needs what from whom?Schedule Management:Focus on the Critical Handoffs (Milestones)Focus on the Program Finish Milestone dateDifference in MS Project planning styles. Recommend: Common scheduling classes, central definition of major milestones, and pre-defined WBS levels across all functions
  • FPGA = Field Programmable Gate Array
  • NOTE: as of Oct 2012, 5 and 6 are currently in exposure draft, but very promising documents!
  • Сложная программа проектов: сроки, риски, мотивация менеджеров проектов

    1. 1. How to Tame a Gorilla ProgramCritical Path 2.0 case study at SanDisk ProjectPro Corp. www.ProjectProCorp.com
    2. 2. Presenter Intro: Eric Uyttewaal, PMP  President ProjectPro Corp.  Specializes in Microsoft Project and Project Server  BS, Engineering MS, Business Administration  Author “Forecast Scheduling with Microsoft Project 2010” & “Dynamic Scheduling with Microsoft Office Project 2003”  Formerly: Executive Director at IIL as developer and manager of the Orange, Blue, Black Belt certification curriculum  Email: EricU@ProjectProCorp.com  Tel: 613-692-7778 © ProjectPro Corp.
    3. 3. What Situation Are You In? Single, Isolated Master- or Project SubprojectNo Resource-loading A BResources &Workload-leveled C D © ProjectPro Corp.
    4. 4. The Challenge of Scheduling Programs © ProjectPro Corp.
    5. 5. Drowning in the Data? © ProjectPro Corp.
    6. 6. The SanDisk Situation: As-Is and As-Needed  As-Is: – “System” is not linked to show interaction between schedules – Manual syncing of dates – Schedules are often suspected of being out-of-date – Resource availability drives schedules – “System” is labor-intensive – Critical Path 1.0 technology  As-Needed: – See complete CP across resource-leveled projects in program – Find that CP in an easy way: Critical Path 2.0 technology – Optimize the CP – Critical Path 2.0 technology © ProjectPro Corp.
    7. 7. The Program Was Considered to Be “InControl” When (Verbatim) 1 of 2 The program schedule has at least ten major milestones (ten sub networks) All subproject schedules are dynamic models that forecast the subprojects – “Forecast Scheduling with Microsoft Project 2010 ” checklist We have a detailed Critical Path to the next two major milestones We have 90% confidence level (simulation) the next 2 major milestones would be completed on time We have a high-level Critical Path (deliverables only) for entire program that forecasts on-time completion © ProjectPro Corp.
    8. 8. The Program Was Considered to Be “InControl” When (Visually) 2 of 290% probability on time 90% probability on time 90% probability on time 90% probability on time 90% probability on time 90% probability on time 90% probability on time 90% probability on time ?? % on time!!! 90% on time???? © ProjectPro Corp.
    9. 9. Our Reasons to Divide the Program intoMultiple Subprojects Delegate to a scheduler closer to the work More than 2,000 tasks in the program Multiple people need to update the master schedule People are in different countries, in different time zones and speak different languages © ProjectPro Corp.
    10. 10. Consequences of Multiple SubprojectSchedules Multiple schedulers have to adhere to scheduling guidelines for the program Dependencies between schedules and a Critical Path that runs across schedules Sharing resources across subprojects, perhaps even across programs © ProjectPro Corp.
    11. 11. Why Re-integrating the Subproject Schedules? Integrated Master Schedule Subprojects with cross-project dependencies1. Identify and optimize the Critical Path into next milestone(s)2. Determine appropriate buffers (deadlines) for handoffs3. Report accurate forecasts on the program as a whole © ProjectPro Corp.
    12. 12. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Program Critical Path Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)Subproject A Subproject B Subproject C © ProjectPro Corp.
    13. 13. Options for Managing theDependencies between Subprojects1. Do Not Model Them - Coordinate dates manually in regular meetings! - no Critical Path2. Model them using Deliverables feature - no Critical Path3. Model them using Links-between-Projects feature - Links lost, duplicated or slow4. Model them using PPMS add-in (ProjectPro Program Management Solution) + Critical Path, links protected © ProjectPro Corp.
    14. 14. PPMS Example Program “Write Book” © ProjectPro Corp.
    15. 15. PPMS: Identifying the HandoffsProvider Project: „Publishing‟ Receiver Project: „Authoring‟ Task Name Handoff Task Name Handoff Publisher hands Outline „Outline‟ received from Outline „Outline‟ to Authors publisher by Authors © ProjectPro Corp.
    16. 16. PPMS Excel Dashboard - Lists allHandoffs (Links between Subprojects) Dashboard Handoffs Program „Write Book‟ © ProjectPro Corp.
    17. 17. Demo PPMS © ProjectPro Corp.
    18. 18. How the IMS is Generated Create project files at function level Identify all cross-project milestones in .MPP‟s Copy cross-project dependencies to .XLS file Create cross-project links with PPMS Level workloads at the program level Identify Resource-Critical Path with CCP Optimize Resource-Critical Path Simulate to get high-confidence date (project buffer) © ProjectPro Corp.
    19. 19. Dealing with Shared Resources Model with Generic Resources first! Optimize the IMS: 1. Adding idle resources to the most-Critical Path(s) 2. Moving resources from non-Critical to Critical Paths 3. Continue until resourcing is (perfectly) balanced © ProjectPro Corp.
    20. 20. How Leveling Affects the Critical Path 1.0 Before leveling:write X Harry 9 Dwrite Y Harry 6 D After leveling: levelingwrite X Harry 9 Dwrite Y Harry 6 D © ProjectPro Corp.
    21. 21. Resource Dependencies Differ fromLogical DependenciesA logical dependency imposes the sequence: Write PrintA resource dependency is a relationship between twoactivities where the sequence can be switched.The relationship is the sharing of the same resource:Write X Harry Write X Harry ORWrite Y Harry Write Y HarrySource: Forecast Scheduling with Microsoft Project 2010 © ProjectPro Corp.
    22. 22. Hunting for the Critical Path in an IMS Demo CCP in IMS © ProjectPro Corp.
    23. 23. IMS Critical Path into Next Major MilestoneWorkload-Leveled
    24. 24. Critical Path Handoffs (PPMS)
    25. 25. Critical Handoff Milestones65 handoffs, but only 4 critical handoffs:
    26. 26. Critical Path End Date Accumulated Leveling Delay = 72 days !! Pre-leveled Post-leveled Name Finish Finish System Qual Complete, Rev. A 10 Jul 13 20 Sep 13
    27. 27. Critical Path Analysis MS Project 1 CCP 2Unleveled Critical Path Yes YesWorkload-Leveled Critical Path No YesElapsed durations (ed) No YesMultiple Calendars No YesLogical Dependencies Yes YesResource Dependencies No YesMost-Critical Path No YesLongest-Path No Yes 1 Critical Path 1.0 compliant 2 Critical Path 2.0 compliant
    28. 28. Tools Used Tool SupplierMicrosoft Project 2010 Microsoft Corp.PPMS – to Link & Unlink schedules ProjectPro Corp.CCP – for Critical Path analysis ProjectPro Corp.Monte Carlo Simulation Al Rusnak © ProjectPro Corp.
    29. 29. Roadmap for the Pilot Program Forecast Scheduling and Forecasting Programs training Review schedules to make sure guidelines are followed ProjectPro provides software licenses: – ProjectPro Program Management Solution (PPMS) – Complete Critical Paths (CCP) Create the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Identify/optimize Critical Path of next major milestones Do this for four consecutive weeks (=CSF) Support from ProjectPro during the entire program © ProjectPro Corp.
    30. 30. Program Schedule Process1. Generate Project Schedules2. Add handoff Milestones and Codes3. Update Project Schedules and submit to repository4. Integrate Project Schedules to Program (PPMS)5. Find Resource-Critical Path and Optimize (CCP)6. Des-integrate: standalone Project Schedules (PPMS)7. Update Handoff Milestone Dates © ProjectPro Corp.
    31. 31. Determining the High-Confidence Date forthe Program Task Duration Estimates: – 50% Confidence durations – 90% Confidence durations MS Project Forecasts Finish Date (FF) – Based on 50% confidence durations High-Confidence Forecast Finish Date (HCFF) – Including 90% confidence durations in Monte Carlo simulation – HCFF - FF = Program Buffer Only 1 buffer = Program Buffer
    32. 32. Time Simulation Results:Statistical Analysis - Resource leveled Bin Frequency Cumulative % 25166445 System Qual Complete, Rev A 10/25/13 0 0.00% 10/29/13 2 0.20% 11/02/13 1 0.30%Mean 12/19/13 11/06/13 1 0.40%Standard Error .5496 11/10/13 4 0.80%Median 12/19/13 11/14/13 9 1.70%Mode 01/06/14 11/18/13 7 2.40% 11/22/13 35 5.90%Standard Deviation 17.3814 11/26/13 26 8.50%Sample Variance 302.1142 11/30/13 61 14.60%Kurtosis .9349 12/04/13 48 19.40%Skewness 0.273146532 12/08/13 76 27.00% 12/12/13 72 34.20%Range 145.3097222 12/16/13 59 40.10%Minimum 10/25/13 12/20/13 136 53.70%Maximum 03/19/14 12/24/13 65 60.20%Sum 41627042.5 12/28/13 129 73.10%Count 1000 01/01/14 58 78.90% 01/05/14 59 84.80%Largest(1) 03/19/14 01/09/14 50 89.80%Smallest(1) 10/25/13 01/13/14 25 92.30%Confidence Level(95.0%) 1.0786 01/17/14 34 95.70% 01/21/14 14 97.10% 01/25/14 12 98.30% 01/29/14 3 98.60% 02/02/14 4 99.00% 02/06/14 4 99.40%
    33. 33. Time Simulation Results:Frequency and Cumulative Histogram
    34. 34. Time Simulation Results – Overview Proof of Concept Schedules System Qual Complete, Rev. A Unleveled, forecast: 10 Jul 2013 Leveled, forecast: 20 Sep 2013 High Confidence: 09 Jan 2014 Program Duration: 542 Calendar Days Leveling Delay: +72 Calendar Days Program Buffer: +85 Work Days Critical Handoffs 4 out of 65
    35. 35. Differences between Single Project Schedule and Subproject Schedule (that is part of IMS) Single Project Subproject• Complete Network Logic • Multiple ending points in network• (Often) one Critical Path • Multiple Critical Paths• No external dependencies • Many external dependencies --- © ProjectPro Corp.
    36. 36. Differences Single Project versus IMS schedule Single Project Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Project schedule has Subproject schedules haveNetwork logic one ending point in multiple ending points, but IMS its network logic has one.Cross-project None ManydependenciesCritical Paths One Multiple, often ten or moreof interest Some subproject schedules haveCritical Each schedule has program-critical activities, othersactivities critical activities have none Many (for product-developmentResource Few programs in first-to-marketdependencies companies) © ProjectPro Corp.
    37. 37. Situations and the Tools You Need Single, Isolated Master with Project SubprojectsNo Resources Critical Path 1.0/2.0 Critical Path 1.0/2.0 MS Project MS Project + PPMS + CCP CCP recommendedResources & Critical Path 2.0 Critical Path 2.0Workload-leveled MS Project + CCP MS Project + PPMS + CCPCCP = Complete Critical Paths from ProjectProCorp.comPPMS = ProjectPro Program Management Solution from ProjectProCorp.com © ProjectPro Corp.
    38. 38. Program Forecast Report: Buffer Consumption © ProjectPro Corp.
    39. 39. Key Benefits of This Approach for SanDisk Provides complete Critical Paths in workload-leveled programs: – Real visibility on the dynamics in the program – Shows the criticality of the resources (functions) Allows to optimize resource needs and allocations Allows to recover from slippages (what-if scenarios!) Keeps all schedules standalone: – schedules open fast, working offline, easy updating Allows project-specific resource pools or shared pool Provides high-confidence forecasts for product release dates © ProjectPro Corp.
    40. 40. Integrated Master Schedule: Summary Multiple subproject files can be linked The real Resource-Critical Path can be identified Schedule delays can be decreased or resolved A 90%-probable commit-date can be calculated at the program level The program can be forecasted continuously! © ProjectPro Corp.
    41. 41. Our Recommendations1. Achieve agreement among stakeholders on when program is considered “in control.”2. The more subproject schedules, the better3. Protect unity of data at all cost!4. Address differences in scheduling styles5. Create autonomous subproject teams6. Make resource names unique across the program7. Use generic resources first to optimize the program as a whole (Time-to-Market!)8. Use Critical Path 2.0 and compliant tools (CCP + PPMS)!9. Standardize the WBS for sub schedules (see next slide) © ProjectPro Corp.
    42. 42. Standardized Levels of the WBS Level 0 – Subprojects (=major component) – Nouns (without verbs): e.g., ASIC, Firmware, Parts, Test Software, Reliability, Tested Parts Level 1 – Subcomponents – Nouns (without verbs): e.g., for ASIC: Subsystems, Top Design Level 2 – Function – Nouns (without verbs): e.g., for ASIC: Logic Design, Physical Design, FPGA Design, Documentation, Verification, Test Preparation, Package, Foundry, and Design Validation Level 3 – Tangible Deliverables – Nouns (without verbs): e.g., for ASIC: Preliminary, Trial and Final RTL; Preliminary, Trial and Final Synthesis and Layout; RTL, Gate Level Verification and multiple FPGA releases. Lowest Level – Activities – Use verbs (present/imperative tense) © ProjectPro Corp.

    ×