Acumen Fuse World Tour 2012

867 views
642 views

Published on

Acumen has completed the first leg of the World Tour. This presentation is an in-depth overview of Acumen's solutions, as well as several Fuse use cases from Fuse clients

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
867
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
86
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Acumen Fuse World Tour 2012

  1. 1. //Acumen Fuse World Tour 2012
  2. 2. // World Tour Overview Acumen Fuse ◦  The tour ◦  10 countries: 24 locations ◦  Fuse & Fuse 360 ◦  Fuse 3.1 launch ◦  Acumen Cloud™, New Schedule Cleanser™; New forensics, enhanced P6 integration
  3. 3. // Dr. Dan Patterson, PMP President and CEO, Acumen ◦  Legacy: ◦  20 years of PPM experience ◦  WelcomHome, WelcomRisk, TerraFirma ◦  Pertmaster ◦  Thought Leader: ◦  Project analytics ◦  Project Risk analysis ◦  S1>S5™ schedule maturity framework ◦  Founder of Acumen, inventor of Fuse
  4. 4. Realistic Scheduling// Acumen Proven Project Analytics // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  Project Management Software Company // S3 Risk-Adjusted◦  Insight into challenges & use of // S4 Optimized analytics to overcome them // S5 Team-Aligned◦  Core Concepts: Product Offerings 1.  Project success requires a sound plan Acumen Fuse® 2.  Planning requires risk consideration Risk Workshops Software Training
  5. 5. // Schedule Maturity Framework Acumen S1 > S5 6   •  Schedule  Basis    S1   •  Owner/contractor  schedule   5   •  Cri/qued  Schedule   S2   •  Ensure  structural  integrity   4  Chance  of  Sucess   •  Risk-­‐Adjusted  Schedule   3   S3   •  Account  for  risk/uncertainty   2   •  Op/mized  Target  Scenarios   S4   •  Schedule  accelera>on   1   •  Team  Validated  Scenario   0   0   1   2   3   4   5   6   S5   •  Buy-­‐in  on  op>miza>on   Maturity  Level   Measure quality through the Fuse Schedule Index™
  6. 6. // Case Studies The benefits of Fuse 1.  Owner/contractor alignment [S1>S2] Subcontractors   Contractors   2.  Bidding competitiveness [S1>S2] Owners   3.  Acceleration/risk reduction [S3>S5] 3rd  Party   Joint  Venture   Assessors   4.  Performance tracking 5.  Dispute resolution •  All leads to: 6.  Portfolio analysis •  More realistic, achievable plans •  Many X faster/easier than manual approachMay 16, 2012
  7. 7. // Acumen Fuse Platform Enterprise Project Analysis Metric   Analyzer   ◦  Fuse: analytics platform Logic   ◦  Improves schedule quality Analyzer   ◦  Insight into performance Forensic   Analyzer   ◦  Fuse 360: goal-based acceleration Schedule   Cleanser   ◦  Schedule Acceleration Schedule   ◦  Decision-support Accelerator  May 16, 2012
  8. 8. // Measuring Schedule Quality The Fuse Schedule Index™
  9. 9. // Better Planning Drives Project Success Proven Correlation 100%   90%   Probability  of  On-­‐Time  Comple/on   80%   70%   60%   50%   40%   30%   20%   10%   0%   0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%   60%   70%   80%   90%   100%   Fuse  Schedule  Index™  
  10. 10. // Metric Analysis Slice & Dice Benefit:" Pinpoint shortcomings" Project characteristics" Slice and dice About:" 300+ metrics" Percentage: context" Threshold: acceptabilityMay 16, 2012
  11. 11. // Types of Project Metrics Fuse Metric Libraries Schedule   Cost   Performance   Characteris>cs   Earned  Value   Risk  • Logic   • Overrun   • Status   • Level  of  detail   • CPI/SPI   • Exposure  • Float   • Capacity   • Completed   • Constrained   • Trending   • Hot  spots  • Dura>on   • Burn  rates   • Delayed   • Riding  Data   • Earned   • Hidden  paths   Date   schedule   •  Project management best practices •  Industry/corporate standards: PMI, AACE, NDIA •  Fuse-specific: Logic Density™, Hotspot, Redundancy •  Compliance: DCMA 14 Point, DoD •  Create your own!
  12. 12. // Customizable Metrics Fuse Metric Editor
  13. 13. // Acumen-Specific Metrics Advanced Project Insight Finish   Insufficient   Logic   Logic   Compliance™   Detail™   Density™   Hotspot™   • Accurate   • Ac>vity  V   • Measure  of   • Timely  start?   measure  of   project  dura>on   complexity/ performance   completeness   Milestone   Broad  Risk   Float  Ra>o™   Redundancy   Ra>o™   Range   • Degree  of   Index™   • Detail  V   • Check  for   flexibility  per   • Non-­‐needed   repor>ng   erroneous  risk   day  of  work   logic   input  
  14. 14. // Logic Density™ Integrity Check ◦  Measure of complexity & soundness ◦  Dual-band threshold: 2 to 6… ◦  Determine Logic Hotspots™ in schedule ◦  Trending: determine timing of shortcomings More definition needed
  15. 15. // Fuse Schedule Cleanser™ Actionable Insight
  16. 16. 1// Project Forensics 6 Insight into Schedule CleanseMay 16, 2012
  17. 17. // Claims Analysis Insight into project variances◦  Advanced forensics◦  Fuse gives meaning to the impact of changes◦  Pinpoints changes to critical/ driving path◦  Every single project attribute can be checked◦  Calendar definition changesMay 16, 2012
  18. 18. // Reporting Publish Analysis Results Executive Analyst Dashboard! API & Briefing! Report! •  Interactive Custom •  Summary of •  To do list! charts & Reports" graphs" analysis •  Automation results! of existing reports"May 16, 2012
  19. 19. // Integration Schedule, Cost, Risk, Performance, EV Asta   Cobra   Open   Prism   Plan   G2   P3/P6   PRA   MS   Excel/ Project   XML   Na>ve  tool  not  May 16, 2012 required  
  20. 20. // Case Study #1 Owner/contractor Alignment •  Houston-based oil/gas owner •  Objective: •  More on-time completion for projects over $250MM •  Encourage more mature contractor schedules •  Overcome “brain drain” in scheduling •  How achieved: •  Mandated contractor Fuse Schedule Index of 75+ •  Gave contractor opportunity to self-assess
  21. 21. // Case Study #1 Fuse Modules ◦  Metric analysis view ◦  Slice and dice analysis ◦  Executive briefing and Analyst reporting ◦  Logic analysis ◦  Schedule cleanser™ ◦  Score comparison ◦  Forensic analyzer ◦  Executive dashboard ◦  Exporting fixed schedule // Fuse Demo
  22. 22. // Case Study #1 Owner/contractor Alignment •  Outcome: •  Contractor achieved 75+ Fuse Schedule Index •  Schedule was more realistic •  Schedule was earlier! •  Owner gained confidence in the contractor •  Better collaboration & alignment between stakeholders
  23. 23. // Acumen Cloud™ Project Benchmarking ◦  Communitized benchmarking ◦  Means of determining: ◦  Schedule quality? ◦  How this ranks with other projects? ◦  How does this align our project for on-time completion? ◦  100% anonymous, secure (SSL) ◦  Continuously getting more intelligent ◦  New libraries can be pushed to Fuse!
  24. 24. // Acumen Cloud™ Architecture Knowledge   Base   Fuse 3.1 Dynamic Cloud Libraries Client-based analysis Benchmarking
  25. 25. // Acumen Cloud The Fuse Schedule Index™
  26. 26. // Case Study #2 Bidding Competitiveness •  EPC bids for a utility turnaround •  Three competing bidders •  Objective: •  Owner wanting to make informed award decision •  Cheapest? Fastest? Most achievable? •  How Achieved: •  Compared schedule, cost, quality metrics •  Benchmarked using Acumen Cloud™
  27. 27. // Case Study #2 Fuse modules ◦  Importing multiple scheduling platforms ◦  Timeline view ◦  Cost/duration comparison ◦  Driving logic analyzer ◦  Acumen Cloud benchmarking // Fuse Demo
  28. 28. //
  29. 29. //
  30. 30. //
  31. 31. //
  32. 32. //
  33. 33. //
  34. 34. //
  35. 35. //
  36. 36. //
  37. 37. //
  38. 38. //
  39. 39. //
  40. 40. // Case Study #2 Bidding Competitiveness •  Outcome: •  Contractor B fastest, cheapest but poorest quality •  Contractor A cheapest but fundamental logic flaw •  Contractor C was most expensive but… •  Had highest quality score •  Had a true continuous driving path •  Had sound cash flow •  Ranked highly with regards to benchmarking •  Was awarded the contract!
  41. 41. Realistic Scheduling// Case Study #3 Schedule Acceleration/Risk Reduction // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  GasCom // S3 Risk-Adjusted ◦  LNG Pipeline & Facility Owner // S4 Optimized ◦  Early FEED stage // S5 Team-Aligned◦  Project Details ◦  Readying for sanction approval ◦  Expected First Gas Date: Dec. 2013 ◦  Gas sales contract already established ◦  Using Primavera P6
  42. 42. Realistic Scheduling// S1 > S2 Schedule Review // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  Sanction Board Requirements // S3 Risk-Adjusted ◦  Risk-adjusted forecast P75 // S4 Optimized ◦  Fuse Schedule Index 75+ // S5 Team-Aligned◦  Project Status ◦  S1 showing Dec 13 first gas ◦  Risk assessment not yet conducted
  43. 43. // S1 > S2 Schedule Critique Sound Basis of Schedule ◦  Validated multiple sub-projects ◦  Test to ensure true path to First Gas ◦  Analysis showed break in path around Early Works ◦  Fixing this, First Gas moved to the right by 2 months ◦  Schedule cleanse: further 3 months adjustmentMay 16, 2012
  44. 44. // Removal of Logic Redundancy Simplification of Schedule 8%  redundancy   Removal of redundancy led to a cleaner, more robust schedule
  45. 45. Realistic Scheduling// S1 > S2 Summary // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  S2 First Gas date: May 2014 // S3 Risk-Adjusted S1: Dec 2013 5  months   S2: May 2014 // S4 Optimized // S5 Team-Aligned◦  Schedule Critique Details: ◦  Missing Logic was added ◦  Lags converted to activities ◦  Float analysis ◦  Showed padding of early activities
  46. 46. // Float Analysis GasCom ◦  S1 showed high float in early stage of project ◦  S2 resolved schedule showed the opposite ◦  Early acceleration opportunity went away Originally perceived opportunity for making up lost time through Resolved schedule not 60   float absorption in early stage of offering early stage schedule 40   project acceleration 20   0   Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   2011   2011   Q1   Q2   2011   2011   Q3   2012   2012   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  
  47. 47. Realistic Scheduling// S2 > S3 Risk Analysis // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  Objective: // S3 Risk-Adjusted ◦  Determine a P75 First Gas date // S4 Optimized◦  Conducted Risk Workshop // S5 Team-Aligned Schedule   Risk   Events   Uncertainty  
  48. 48. // GasCom Perception of Risk Exposure Risk Inputs & Outputs Uncertainty Factor Best Case (Optimistic) Worst Case (Pessimistic) Very Conservative 50% 100% Conservative 75% 105% Realistic 90% 110% Aggressive 95% 125% Very Aggressive 100% 150% 70%   60%   Team  Percep>on   50%   Actual  Risk  Hotspots   40%   30%   20%   10%   0%  
  49. 49. // Risk Insight Risk Inputs Aggressive   Conserva>ve   Broad  Risk  Range   •  Skew  to  the  right   •  Skew  to  the  lef   •  Range  <>  dura>on   Ques>onable   No  Risk     Average  Risk   Range   •  Missed  ranging   Range   •  Accidently  includes  risk   •  Degree  of  uncertainty   events   No  upside   No  Downside   Wrong   •  Can  only  be  later   •  Can  only  be  earlier   •  Inputs  don’t  align  
  50. 50. //
  51. 51. // Risk Insight Risk Exposure High  cri>cality   Hidden  cri>cal   Risk  Hotspots™   •  Risk  indicator   paths   •  Risky  &  complex   •  Unique  insight   logic   Schedule  risk   High  Con>ngency   Average  Risk   drivers   •  How  much  buffer   exposure   •  True  risk  metric   needed?   •  Risk  Trending/path  
  52. 52. //
  53. 53. Realistic Scheduling// S2 > S3 Summary // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued ◦  P75 risk-adjusted First Gas: Oct 2014 // S3 Risk-Adjusted ◦  10 months later than board expectations // S4 OptimizedS1: S2: S3: // S5 Team-AlignedDec 2013 5   May 2014 10   Oct 2014 ◦  Identified key risk hot spots ◦  Long Lead procurement items ◦  Hidden path identified ◦  Driven by land acquisition delaying pipeline early works
  54. 54. Realistic Scheduling// S3 > S4 Getting back to Dec 2013 // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued // S3 Risk-Adjusted◦  Risk Mitigation: // S4 Optimized ◦  Response plan identified for key risks // S5 Team-Aligned ◦  Response plans added to schedule ◦  Assessed cost/benefit of mitigation ◦  $100MM investment to save 1 month
  55. 55. Realistic Scheduling// S3 > S4 Getting back to Dec 2013 // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  Schedule Acceleration details: // S3 Risk-Adjusted ◦  LNG Pipeline ready for hookup: Feb 13 // S4 Optimized ◦  LNG Facility ready to receive gas: Nov 13 // S5 Team-Aligned◦  Focus needed: ◦  Accelerating the LNG facility◦  Could afford to slow down pipeline/ field work by months…
  56. 56. // LNG Facility Acceleration Criteria Set ◦  Criteria set drives acceleration ◦  Reduce duration LNG  Facility   ◦  More resources Script  Objec/ve   ◦  Changed calendars “accelerate  Facility  by  6   ◦  Contractor incentive months”   Step  1   Step  2   Step  3   ◦  Delay Train 2 Accelerate   Delay  Train   Introduce  6   Jeoy   2  ac>vi>es   day  working   construc>on   week/larger   camp  
  57. 57. // How did this work? Fuse 360 Acceleration ◦  CPM simulation ◦  Critical path focus ◦  Incremental push ◦  Prioritize ◦  Earliest/latest ◦  Longest durations ◦  Least resistance
  58. 58. Realistic Scheduling// S3 > S4 > S5 Summary // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  LNG Facility: // S3 Risk-Adjusted ◦  Accelerated sufficiently // S4 Optimized ◦  No longer the driving path // S5 Team-Aligned◦  S4 Deterministic First Gas: Aug 2013 ◦  4 months earlier than S1 ◦  12 months earlier than S3 ◦  P75 risk-adjusted: Feb 2014◦  S5 Team Buy-in ◦  Final 2 months achieved through more aggressive mitigation
  59. 59. // GasCom Case Study The Result ◦  Fully vetted, bought-into schedule ◦  Risk-adjusted ◦  LNG Facility accelerated to align with pipeline ◦  Mitigation plan sponsored by board ◦  Sanction awarded! S5: Mitigated Dec 1 2013 P75 S4: Feb 2014 S4: Accelerated S1: Target 1st Gas S2: Resolved Schedule S3: Risk-Adjusted Aug 1 2013 Dec 1 2013 May 1 2014 Oct 1 2014
  60. 60. 6// GasCom First Gas Dates 0 Evolution of Schedule Model 10   P75  Schedule  Delay  From  Dec  2013  1st  Gas  (months)   9   8   7   6   Resolved, risk- 10 5   adjusted, accelerated, 4   mitigated 3   5 2   2 0 1   0 0   S1  -­‐  base   S2  -­‐  resolved   S3  -­‐  risk-­‐adjusted   S4  -­‐  accelerated   S5  -­‐  mi>gated   Scenario  May 16, 2012
  61. 61. // Case Study #3 Fuse Modules ü  Float analysis ü  Risk Metrics ü  Fuse 360 // Fuse 360 Demo
  62. 62. // Acceleration Efficiency™ Measure of Acceleration Effort Example  1   Example  2   ◦  2 day project acceleration ◦  2 day project acceleration ◦  Requires 2 days of reduction ◦  Requires 2 days of reduction ◦  Acceleration Efficiency =2/2 100% ◦  Acceleration Efficiency=2/3 67% 2 day activity reduction 2 day activity reduction 1 day activity 3 reduction 2 day project 2 day project acceleration acceleration
  63. 63. // Case Study #4: Measuring Project Performance Baseline Compliance™ ◦  Traditional measures include: ◦  Earned value: heavy time investment to implement ◦  Earned schedule: similar to EV ◦  % complete: what does this really tell us? ◦  Ahead/behind baseline: too granular a scale… ◦  Baseline Compliance™ ◦  Determine how close schedule is executed against baseline ◦  Measure of change during planning phase ◦  Measure of well the plan is being executed ◦  More than just date comparison ◦  Looks at period-complianceMay 16, 2012
  64. 64. // Baseline Compliance Index™ Examines  how   many  ac>vi>es   fell  within  the   expected   repor>ng  period  
  65. 65. // Developing Baseline Compliance Index
  66. 66. // Finish Compliance Index™ 100%   80%   60%   40%   20%   0%  May 16, 2012
  67. 67. //
  68. 68. //
  69. 69. // Better Planning Drives Project Success Proven Correlation 100%   90%   Probability  of  On-­‐Time  Comple/on   80%   70%   60%   50%   40%   30%   20%   10%   0%   0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%   60%   70%   80%   90%   100%   Fuse  Schedule  Index™  
  70. 70. //
  71. 71. More information: White papers: www.projectacumen.com Software Trial: www.projectacumen.com/trial// Twitter: @projectacumen Email: dpatterson@projectacumen.com

×