Achieving the Unachievable: Aligning a Project with Stakeholder Expectations

Achieving the Unachievable A Case Study on Aligning a Project with Stakeholder Objectives enterprise project analysisDr. Dan Patterson PMP | CEO & Founder Acumen

Introductions! Acumen: Project Management Software Company! Market leader in Analytics; 20 year legacy! Oracle Primavera & Microsoft partner S1 > S5™ Framework Acumen Core Offerings S5: Acumen Fuse® Validate S4: Optimize S3: Risk- S2: Adjust Risk Assessment Workshops Critique S1: Build Software Training

3Case Study Introduction! Case study: GasCom ! LNG Pipeline & Facility Owner ! Early FEED stage! Project readying for sanction approval ! Investment board Dec 2013 P75 First Gas ! Gas Sales contract already established! GasCom adopted Acumen S1>S5 ! Required contractors to achieve Fuse Schedule Index™ of 75%! Schedule developed in Primavera P6! All analytics conducted using Acumen Fuse February 10, 2012

4GasCom S1 > S5 Approach •  Schedule BasisS1 •  Reflects latest scope/contractor updates •  Critiqued ScheduleS2 •  Structurally sound, no contingency, sound logic •  Risk-Adjusted ScheduleS3 •  Estimate uncertainty, risk events •  Optimized Target ScenariosS4 •  Reduced hot spots, higher confidence •  Team Validated ScenarioS5 •  Buy-in on mitigation plans February 10, 2012

5S1 > S2 Schedule Review! Deterministic date of Dec 2013! Bidding contractors submitted their schedules to GasCom! GasCom needed to ensure sufﬁcient realism in the schedules! Looked for means of compressing the schedule to show that an earlier First Gas was achievable February 10, 2012

6Schedule Critique! Metric Analysis ! Quality of logic ! Float analysis ! Realism of durations ! Contractor maturity/realism! Based on the Fuse metric library February 10, 2012 [demo of standard Schedule analysis]

Fuse Schedule Index™ 7Analysis by Contractor February 10, 2012

8Schedule Analysis Results! Bidder B failed Schedule Quality review ! Quality was less than 75% threshold ! Had to re-submit resolved schedule ! Used Fuse Schedule Assistant™ to ﬁx shortcomings February 10, 2012

9GasCom Schedule Cleanse Lags converted to activities February 10, 2012

Impact of Schedule 10Cleanse 5 month slippage February 10, 2012

11Logic Integrity! Use of FS, FF, SF, SS links! SS links don’t account for durations! Lags hide schedule detail redundant! Leads cause reverse dates A ! Circular logic between projects B ! Out of sequence updates! Open start/ﬁnish: hidden open ends C ! Logic Density™! Logic Hotspot™! Redundancy Index™ February 10, 2012

12GasCom Logic Density™! Measure of complexity & soundness! Dual-band threshold: 2 to 6…! Determine Logic Hotspots™ in schedule! GasCom the level of detail was lacking towards the end of the project – mainly around interfaces & integration More definition needed February 10, 2012

13Driving Logic Analysis! Test to ensure true path to First Gas! Analysis showed that there was an error in the schedule with a break in the path around Early Works! As a result of ﬁxing this missing path, First Gas moved to the right by 2 months February 10, 2012

Removal of Logic 14Redundancy 8% redundancy Removal of redundancy led to a cleaner, more robust schedule

15GasCom Float Analysis! S1 showed high ﬂoat in early stage of project! S2 resolved schedule showed the opposite! Sanction acceleration opportunity went away Originally percieved opportunity for making up Resolved schedule not 60 lost time through float offering early stage schedule absorbtion in early stage of acceleration 40 project 20 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2011 2011 Q1 Q2 2011 2011 2012 2012 Q3 Q4 Q1 2012 2012 Q2 Q3 2013 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 2013 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 S1 Average Float S2 Average Float 2014 2014 February 10, 2012

16S1 > S2 Summary! Bidder schedules all passed the Schedule Quality Index™ Assessment! Missing logic was added! Lags converted to activities! Opportunity for schedule acceleration was understood (back-end loaded) S1: Dec 2013 5 months S2: May 2014 February 10, 2012

17S2 > S3 Risk Analysis! Objective: to determine a risk-adjusted P75 First Gas! Risk workshop conducted! True risk exposure was actually at end of project 70% Team Perception 60% Actual Risk Hotspots 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 February 10, 2012

18Risk Insight! Hidden critical paths! Risk hot Spots™! Determined that Land acquisition activities were extremely critical yet weren’t identiﬁed in the schedule Land acquisition February 10, 2012

19S3 Summary! P75 risk-adjusted First Gas: Oct 2014 ! 10 months later than board expectations! Key risk hot spots in schedule identiﬁed ! Long Lead procurement items! Hidden path identiﬁed ! Driven by land acquisition delaying pipeline early works S1: Dec 2013 5 S2: May 2014 10 S3: Oct 2014 February 10, 2012

S4: Getting back to 20December 2013…Risk Mitigation Plan Schedule Acceleration! Response plan identified ! LNG pipeline ready for for each key risk hookup: Feb 2013! These plans became part ! LNG Facility ready to of the overall schedule receive gas: Nov 2013 ! Focus needed to be on! Enabled cost/benefit of accelerating the LNG the mitigation plan to be facility assessed ! Could even afford to slow! $100MM investment to down pipeline/field work save 1 month by a couple of months… February 10, 2012

LNG Facility AccelerationCriteria Set Drive acceleration! LNG Facility ! Reduce duration Script Objective ! More resources “accelerate Facility by 6 months” ! Changed calendars Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Accelerate Delay Train Introduce 6 ! Contractor incentive Jetty 2 activities day working construction week/larger camp ! Delay Train 2

22How Did This Work?! CPM simulation! Critical path focus! Incremental push! Prioritize ! Earliest/latest ! Longest durations ! Least resistance February 10, 2012

23S4 Summary! LNG Facility was able to be accelerated sufﬁciently so as to not be the driving path in the schedule! Deterministic First Gas of August 2013! 4 months earlier than Dec 2013 but not a valid comparison!! Sanction board wanted a P75 date not a deterministic! Risk-adjusted S4 date of February 2014! Only 2 months later than target… February 10, 2012

24S5 Team Buy-in! A further 2 months acceleration was still required…! New mitigation plans developed based on the updated risk analysis after the schedule compression! Model showed that if the board would sanction a further $500MM spend to sponsor the more aggressive mitigation plan, then P75 could be brought back to Dec 2013.! Project team went to the board with both options and were duly granted the green-light for the more aggressive plan so as to achieve earlier production… February 10, 2012

25GasCom First Gas Dates P75 Schedule Delay From Dec 2013 1st Gas (months) 10 9 8 7 6 10 Resolved, risk- 5 adjusted, 4 accelerated, mitigated 3 5 2 2 0 1 0 0 S1 - base S2 - resolved S3 - risk- S4 - accelerated S5 - mitigated adjusted Scenario February 10, 2012

26The End Result! Fully vetted, bought-into schedule! Risk-adjusted! LNG Facility accelerated to align with pipeline! Mitigation plan sponsored by board! Sanction awarded! February 10, 2012

Better Planning Drives 27Project Success 100%Probability of On-Time Completion 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fuse Quality Index™ February 10, 2012

Sample of Completed 28S1>S5 Projects Top of bar represents sanctioned target completion date Vertical bar represents forecasted risk range Diamond represents actual/ final forecast completion date

More information:White papers: www.projectacumen.comSoftware Trial: www.projectacumen.com/trialTwitter: @projectacumenEmail: info@projectacumen.com

Achieving the Unachievable: Aligning a Project with Stakeholder Expectations

by Acumen

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 2

Statistics

Achieving the Unachievable: Aligning a Project with Stakeholder Expectations Presentation Transcript