Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
2/4/2016 1
SEPTA
Broad Street Subway
Propulsion Control System
Replacement
presented by
Bill Brown-PM 420-Spring 2005”A”
2/4/2016 2
1. High Failure Rate
2. High Maintenance Costs
3. Parts Obsolescence
Reason for Propulsion System
Replacement
2/4/2016 3
KM 48 Cam Control System
2/4/2016 4
KM 48 Cam Control System
2/4/2016 5
KM 48 Cam Control System
2/4/2016 6
Electronic Group
2/4/2016 7
GE Propulsion System
2/4/2016 8
WBS – Major Indents
B4 Propulsion System Upgrade
1. Proposal
2. Preliminary Scope of Work
3. Financial Authoriz...
2/4/2016 9
Risk Identification
 Using the WBS I identified my project’s
individual risks by mentally stepping through all...
2/4/2016 10
Qualitative Risk Analysis
I used the NASA risk template which uses
likelihood and consequences as its x-y
inpu...
2/4/2016 11
Severity=Impact X Probability
Examples
Risk Event: Severity= Impact X Probability
Lowest
Bidder High 5 5
Untra...
2/4/2016 12
Qualitative Risk Analysis
Due to the nature of my company most of
the high severity risks fell under the
tech...
2/4/2016 13
Quantitative Risk Analysis
 I further quantified my most severe risks by
adding a detectability factor. Also,...
2/4/2016 14
Risk #1: Lowest Bidder
 The lowest bidder risk would be realized
during the awards Phase (1.5) of the
project...
2/4/2016 15
Risk #1: Lowest Bidder
 Expected Scenario: Inability to meet less critical
contract demands, such as: mainten...
2/4/2016 16
Risk #1: Lowest Bidder Plan
 Acceptance: Specify that they must have documented
manufacturing expertise in ra...
2/4/2016 17
Lowest Bidder or
Best Qualified
Bidder
Lowest Bidder
Best qualified
Works
Fails
Works
Fails
4/9/2005
Lowest Bi...
2/4/2016 18
Risk #2: Poor Consultant
Performance
 The poor consultant risk would be realized
during the specification Pha...
2/4/2016 19
Risk #2: Poor Consultant
Performance
 Expected Scenario: The consultant will write a
satisfactory specificati...
2/4/2016 20
Risk #2: Poor Consultant
Performance Plan
 Transference: Ensure consultant contract includes bonding of
servi...
2/4/2016 21
Risk #3: Fails Acceptance
 The failure to pass acceptance testing
would be realized during the pre-
productio...
2/4/2016 22
Risk #3: Fails Acceptance
 Expected Scenario: The manufacturer will pass
the major portions of testing but wi...
2/4/2016 23
Risk #3: Fails Acceptance Plan
 Transference: The spec requires successful acceptance
or production will not ...
2/4/2016 24
Risk #4: High MTBF
 The failure to pass the mean-time-
between-failure requirements would be
realized during ...
2/4/2016 25
Risk #4: High MTBF
 Expected Scenario: The manufacturer will
satisfy most of the vehicles MTBF parameters.
So...
2/4/2016 26
Risk #4: High MTBF Plan
 Transference: The spec requires successful MTBF or
the manufacturer will have to red...
2/4/2016 27
Risk #5: Inadequate Spares
 The failure to obtain adequate spare parts
would be realized during the project e...
2/4/2016 28
Risk #5: Inadequate Spares
 Expected Scenario: The manufacturer will try to
convince SEPTA that their equipme...
2/4/2016 29
Risk #5: Inadequate Spares Plan
 Transference: The spec requires a set amount of
spares.
 Transference: Star...
2/4/2016 30
The end
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Bill Brown Slides DeVry University - Project Risk Management (PM 420) - B4 Propulsion System Replacement

451 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Bill Brown Slides DeVry University - Project Risk Management (PM 420) - B4 Propulsion System Replacement

  1. 1. 2/4/2016 1 SEPTA Broad Street Subway Propulsion Control System Replacement presented by Bill Brown-PM 420-Spring 2005”A”
  2. 2. 2/4/2016 2 1. High Failure Rate 2. High Maintenance Costs 3. Parts Obsolescence Reason for Propulsion System Replacement
  3. 3. 2/4/2016 3 KM 48 Cam Control System
  4. 4. 2/4/2016 4 KM 48 Cam Control System
  5. 5. 2/4/2016 5 KM 48 Cam Control System
  6. 6. 2/4/2016 6 Electronic Group
  7. 7. 2/4/2016 7 GE Propulsion System
  8. 8. 2/4/2016 8 WBS – Major Indents B4 Propulsion System Upgrade 1. Proposal 2. Preliminary Scope of Work 3. Financial Authorization 4. Bidding Process 5. Awards Process 6. Pre-production Prototypes (4 Vehicles) 7. Installation on 121 Vehicles 8. Deliverables Review and Validation 9. Warranty Period 10. Project End
  9. 9. 2/4/2016 9 Risk Identification  Using the WBS I identified my project’s individual risks by mentally stepping through all the aspects of the WBS activities to produce my list of uncertainties.
  10. 10. 2/4/2016 10 Qualitative Risk Analysis I used the NASA risk template which uses likelihood and consequences as its x-y inputs. Since, I am the expert on this project I am differentiating the values of likelihood (probability) and consequences (impact) and assigning them to the individual WBS risk elements to determine if my severity is high, medium, or low. Impact and Probability were on a 1-5 scale. 0-5 = Low 6-15 = Medium 16-25 = High
  11. 11. 2/4/2016 11 Severity=Impact X Probability Examples Risk Event: Severity= Impact X Probability Lowest Bidder High 5 5 Untrained Workforce Medium 2 5 Document Translation Problems Low 1 3
  12. 12. 2/4/2016 12 Qualitative Risk Analysis Due to the nature of my company most of the high severity risks fell under the technical/performance category. Project cost risks were generally low because SEPTA historically has used their operating budgets for project cost overruns and has accepted unmet specifications by making trades with the vender. Project scheduling risks were generally low because new systems are installed a one car at a time and the new systems are required to work in mixed consist with the other cars.
  13. 13. 2/4/2016 13 Quantitative Risk Analysis  I further quantified my most severe risks by adding a detectability factor. Also, since 2 of my risks will cause other high, medium, and low risks I quantified these as ultra high.
  14. 14. 2/4/2016 14 Risk #1: Lowest Bidder  The lowest bidder risk would be realized during the awards Phase (1.5) of the project.  Awarding the contract to the lowest bidder and not to the best qualified bidder increases the probability and impact of the other risks.
  15. 15. 2/4/2016 15 Risk #1: Lowest Bidder  Expected Scenario: Inability to meet less critical contract demands, such as: maintenance training and documentation requirements. This scenario will affect the long-term life cycle requirements.  Pessimistic Scenario: Inability to meet major design, quality, and safety requirements which could result in the halting of the project causing major cost and schedule overruns. This scenario could have the potential to create a public and political scandal.  Optimistic Scenario: In this case we saved money and will get a good product that will be maintainable for years to come. Perhaps the lowest bidder was under cutting the competition because they are efficiently run or they wanted to enter the market.
  16. 16. 2/4/2016 16 Risk #1: Lowest Bidder Plan  Acceptance: Specify that they must have documented manufacturing expertise in rail propulsions systems.  Acceptance: Set clear quality control checkpoints, such as: first article inspections and on-site inspection of the manufacturer’s quality assurance plans.  Acceptance: Select best personnel to monitor, validate and communicate vender performance. Risk Triggers: 1. It is a matter of policy.
  17. 17. 2/4/2016 17 Lowest Bidder or Best Qualified Bidder Lowest Bidder Best qualified Works Fails Works Fails 4/9/2005 Lowest Bidder Decision Tree Title Quality, Cost, and Performance suffer. Life cycle costs increase Title Quality, Cost, and Performance suffer. Life cycle costs increase plus $ difference of cost minus lowest bidder
  18. 18. 2/4/2016 18 Risk #2: Poor Consultant Performance  The poor consultant risk would be realized during the specification Phase (1.2.2) and acceptance phases (1.6.2 & 1.7.2) of the project.  SEPTA relies on engineering consultants to write the system specifications. This risk increases the probability and impact of the other risks.
  19. 19. 2/4/2016 19 Risk #2: Poor Consultant Performance  Expected Scenario: The consultant will write a satisfactory specification but will not be held accountable to enforce it and will not be paid to stay on the project full time. The program manger will make uninformed decisions and make engineering changes that will affect operation and maintenance departments negatively.  Pessimistic Scenario: The consultant will write a poor specification that does not hold the system manufacturer to the highest design, quality, and safety requirements and standards. SEPTA will not get what it wants and we will not be able to hold the manufacturer liable.  Optimistic Scenario: The consultant will write an outstanding specification and be able to hold the manufacturer to it so that so that everything specified was received.
  20. 20. 2/4/2016 20 Risk #2: Poor Consultant Performance Plan  Transference: Ensure consultant contract includes bonding of services.  Mitigation: Ensure the consultancy firms has the proper resources and experience required along with backup personnel.  Mitigation: Hire an engineer to do the job.  Acceptance: Compare spec with similar project in other transit agencies. Risk Triggers: 1. If specifications are outdated or are replicas of older spec.
  21. 21. 2/4/2016 21 Risk #3: Fails Acceptance  The failure to pass acceptance testing would be realized during the pre- production prototype phase (1.6) of the project.  Once SEPTA approves the pre-production units the remaining units are produced. If SEPTA signs off and later finds certain problems it will cost SEPTA to fix them.
  22. 22. 2/4/2016 22 Risk #3: Fails Acceptance  Expected Scenario: The manufacturer will pass the major portions of testing but will require time and many early morning runs to tweak the software and get the bugs out.  Pessimistic Scenario (PERT added 71 days to the expected): The manufacturer will not be able to pass major portions of the testing and will have to continue to research and develop on our train and they will require the use of SEPTA expertise to assist them.  Optimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will exceed the timing and parametric constraints of the acceptance test.
  23. 23. 2/4/2016 23 Risk #3: Fails Acceptance Plan  Transference: The spec requires successful acceptance or production will not be signed off on by the engineering manager.  Mitigation: Free up the appropriate SEPTA personnel to lend their expertise on the car to assist the manufacturer.  Mitigation: Ensure we keep old equipment in good condition in case we have to put it back on. Risk Triggers: 1. Prototypes fail. 2. The manufacturer is asking “dumb” questions.
  24. 24. 2/4/2016 24 Risk #4: High MTBF  The failure to pass the mean-time- between-failure requirements would be realized during the warranty phase (1.9) of the project.  Once SEPTA installs the propulsion replacement a 2 year warranty period begins. SEPTA must ensure that the failure rate is >50,000 miles between failure.
  25. 25. 2/4/2016 25 Risk #4: High MTBF  Expected Scenario: The manufacturer will satisfy most of the vehicles MTBF parameters. Some vehicles will fail due the integration of the old and new systems.  Pessimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will not be able to pass the 50K mark on any of the vehicles which will require major reengineering and field modifications.  Optimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will exceed the requirements and find ways to predict propulsion failures before they happen.
  26. 26. 2/4/2016 26 Risk #4: High MTBF Plan  Transference: The spec requires successful MTBF or the manufacturer will have to redesign the system.  Mitigation: Free up the appropriate SEPTA personnel to lend their expertise on the car to assist the manufacturer.  Mitigation: Ensure we keep old equipment in good condition in case we have to put it back on. Risk Triggers: 1. < 50,000 miles failure rate. 2. Red flags going up in prototype acceptance phase.
  27. 27. 2/4/2016 27 Risk #5: Inadequate Spares  The failure to obtain adequate spare parts would be realized during the project end phase (1.10) of the project.  Once SEPTA completes the 2 year warranty period they can compile a spares list using the manufacturers failure information. SEPTA must maintain a low vehicle downtime and quick turn-around times.
  28. 28. 2/4/2016 28 Risk #5: Inadequate Spares  Expected Scenario: The manufacturer will try to convince SEPTA that their equipment wont fail and SEPTA will buy a limited amount of spares forcing operations to buy more later.  Pessimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will not provide every lowest replaceable unit and SEPTA will have trains out-of-service awaiting these parts.  Optimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will exceed the requirements because SEPTA decided to listen to their maintenance personnel and support them with an amount of spares that they would be happy with.
  29. 29. 2/4/2016 29 Risk #5: Inadequate Spares Plan  Transference: The spec requires a set amount of spares.  Transference: Start setting up a contingency in the operating budget to buy more spares.  Mitigation: Ensure we have the proper test equipment and documentation to repair a small float of spares. Risk Triggers: 1. Placing vehicles out-of-service for parts. 2. Failure data is not provided or conclusive.
  30. 30. 2/4/2016 30 The end

×