Meet or Exceed Schedule Expectations through Intelligent Acceleration
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Meet or Exceed Schedule Expectations through Intelligent Acceleration

on

  • 706 views

Delivered at PMI SCoP's 9th Annual Scheduling Conference, this presentation is an introduction of a new approach which enables a project to undergo iterative "what if" scenarios until a balance ...

Delivered at PMI SCoP's 9th Annual Scheduling Conference, this presentation is an introduction of a new approach which enables a project to undergo iterative "what if" scenarios until a balance between successful acceleration and achievability.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
706
Views on SlideShare
701
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

1 Embed 5

http://www.projectacumen.com 5

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Meet or Exceed Schedule Expectations through Intelligent Acceleration Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Meet or Exceed Schedule Expectations through //Intelligent Acceleration Dr. Dan Patterson PMP// CEO Acumen May 7 2012 //
  • 2. // Acumen Realistic Scheduling Proven Project Analytics // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  Project Management Software // S3 Risk-Adjusted◦  Oracle Primavera partner // S4 Optimized◦  Insight into challenges & use of // S5 Team-Aligned analytics to overcome them Product Offerings◦  Core Concepts: 1.  Project success requires a sound plan Acumen Fuse® 2.  Forecast accuracy requires risk Risk Workshops consideration Software Training May 10, 2012 // 2
  • 3. // 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™ May 10, 2012 // 3
  • 4. // Schedule Quality Measurement Metric Analysis ◦  Legacy ◦  duration, constraints, excessive lags, negative float ◦  Industry Standards ◦  DCMA 14 Point Assessment ◦  NDIA GASP/ GAO ◦  Acumen Metrics ◦  Logic Density™ ◦  Insufficient Detail™ May 10, 2012 // 4
  • 5. // Acumen Schedule 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   //
  • 6. // Schedule Index™ Measure of Quality May 10, 2012 // 6
  • 7. // 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-compliance May 10, 2012 //
  • 8. // Baseline Compliance Index™ Examines  how   many  ac>vi>es   fell  within  the   expected   repor>ng  period   //
  • 9. Developing Baseline Compliance// Index //
  • 10. // Finish Compliance Index™100%   80%   60%   40%   20%   0%   May 10, 2012 //
  • 11. // //
  • 12. // Quality Planning Truly Drives 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 Schedule Index™ May 10, 2012 // 12
  • 13. Case Study// Acumen Fuse® Software Demonstration //
  • 14. // Case Study 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 //
  • 15. // Case Study Realistic Scheduling 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 May 10, 2012 // 15
  • 16. // S1 > S2 Realistic Scheduling 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 May 10, 2012 // 16
  • 17. // 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 adjustment May 10, 2012 // 17
  • 18. // GasCom Logic Density™ Planning Consistency ◦  Determine Logic Hotspots™ in schedule ◦  Level of detail was lacking towards the end of the project – mainly around interfaces & integration More  defini>on   needed   May 10, 2012 // 18
  • 19. // Removal of Logic Redundancy Simplification of Schedule 8%  redundancy   Removal of redundancy led to a cleaner, more robust schedule //
  • 20. // S1 > S2 Realistic Scheduling Summary // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  S2 First Gas date: May 2014 // S3 Risk-Adjusted // S4 OptimizedS1: Dec 2013 5 months S2: May 2014 // S5 Team-Aligned◦  Schedule Critique Details: ◦  Missing Logic was added ◦  Lags converted to activities ◦  Float analysis ◦  Showed padding of early activities May 10, 2012 // 20
  • 21. // 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 project schedule acceleration 40   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   May 10, 2012 // 21
  • 22. // S2 > S3 Realistic Scheduling 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   May 10, 2012 // 22
  • 23. // 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%   May 10, 2012 // 23
  • 24. // May 10, 2012 // 24
  • 25. // S2 > S3 Realistic Scheduling Summary // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued ◦  P75 risk-adjusted First Gas: Oct // S3 Risk-Adjusted 2014 ◦  10 months later than board // S4 Optimized expectations // S5 Team-AlignedS1: S2: S3:Dec 2013 5   May 10   Oct 2014 2014 ◦  Identified key risk hot spots ◦  Long Lead procurement items ◦  Hidden path identified ◦  Driven by land acquisition delaying pipeline early works May 10, 2012 // 25
  • 26. // S3 > S4 Realistic Scheduling Getting back to Dec 2013 // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  Risk Mitigation: // S3 Risk-Adjusted ◦  Response plan identified for key // S4 Optimized risks // S5 Team-Aligned ◦  Response plans added to schedule ◦  Assessed cost/benefit of mitigation ◦  $100MM investment to save 1 month May 10, 2012 // 26
  • 27. // S3 > S4 Realistic Scheduling Getting back to Dec 2013 // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  Schedule Acceleration details: // S3 Risk-Adjusted ◦  LNG Pipeline ready for hookup: Feb // S4 Optimized 13 ◦  LNG Facility ready to receive gas: Nov // S5 Team-Aligned 13◦  Focus needed: ◦  Accelerating the LNG facility◦  Could afford to slow down pipeline/ field work by months… May 10, 2012 // 27
  • 28. // 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”   ◦  Delay Train 2 Step  1   Accelerate   Step  2   Delay  Train   Step  3   Introduce  6   Jefy   2  ac>vi>es   day  working   construc>on   week/larger   camp   May 10, 2012 // 28
  • 29. // How did this work? Fuse 360 Acceleration ◦  CPM simulation ◦  Critical path focus ◦  Incremental push ◦  Prioritize ◦  Earliest/latest ◦  Longest durations ◦  Least resistance May 10, 2012 // 29
  • 30. // S3 > S4 > S5 Realistic Scheduling Summary // S1 The Base // S2 Critiqued◦  LNG Facility: // S3 Risk-Adjusted ◦  Accelerated sufficiently ◦  No longer the driving path // S4 Optimized◦  S4 Deterministic First Gas: Aug // S5 Team-Aligned 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 May 10, 2012 // 30
  • 31. // 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: S1: Target 1st S2: Resolved S3: Risk- Accelerated // Gas Schedule Adjusted Aug 1 2013 Dec 1 2013 May 1 2014 Oct 1 2014
  • 32. // How did this work? Fuse 360 Acceleration ◦  CPM simulation ◦  Critical path focus ◦  Incremental push ◦  Prioritize ◦  Earliest/latest ◦  Longest durations ◦  Least resistance //
  • 33. // 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 //
  • 34. // Q&A //
  • 35. More information: White papers: www.projectacumen.com Software Trial: www.projectacumen.com/trial// Twitter: @projectacumen Email: info@projectacumen.com //