Schedule Analysis   TechniquesWalter Majerowicz, MBA, PMP      ASRC Aerospace Corporation    NASA Goddard Space Flight Cen...
Learning Outcomes     • This presentation will examine how schedule analysis     can help project teams understand:       ...
“When Will the Project Finish?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz               3
Critical Path Analysis                          SCS Project Schedule – at baseline                                        ...
Critical Path Analysis                         SCS Project Schedule as of 10/31/08                                        ...
What is Our Confidence in Finishing on Time?      Monte Carlo                                0 - Total Project : Finish Da...
“Where is the Risk in the Schedule?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz             7
Risky Business     Task 1         A                                           Which activity is least likely     Task 1   ...
Riskier Business •    Consider two independent activities scheduled      to finish on June 10th                           ...
Total Slack Trend With Thresholds                           WBS 1.1.2.2 RTT B Assembly Risk Indicator                35   ...
Activity Duration Sensitivity                                GPM Schedule PDR Model                                       ...
Recognizing Schedule Gaming, Abuse             and Data Manipulation Traps       – Intentionally reducing or shrinking fut...
“Do We Have Enough Schedule slack and               Margin/Reserve?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz       13
Free Slack, Total Slack & Reserve                                                                           Total Slack   ...
Total Slack Summary                             Alpha Project Total Slack Summary  Total Slack Summary provides a top leve...
Funded Schedule Margin/Reserve Trend                                                     C+DH                             ...
Risk-Based Schedule Reserve  Activity                Risk          Impact     Probability       Expected ValueObservatory ...
Using Schedule Risk Analysis to                  Determine Schedule Reserve                          0 - Total Project : F...
“Is the Schedule Realistic, Credible and                     Achievable?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz            ...
SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST          Yes   No               Criterion Description                            Schedule As...
Activity Duration Rules-of-Thumb •    Durations should be estimated by the person responsible for the activity      (when ...
Historic Schedule Analysis • Archive “As Planned” and “As Built” schedules for future   comparison to new project schedule...
Horizontal Integration Traceability Check                                                                    XYZ Total    ...
NEW      Over all Rating                                        Project Name:          Pr oject XYZ                       ...
Vertical Integration Traceability Check                                        2000 2001   2002 2003 2004                 ...
Project Control Milestone* Method                                                    “S” Curve Check               70     ...
Resource Leveling                              Initial Critical Path Method ScheduleCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz ...
Resource Leveling                 Resources are Allocated or “Loaded” into ActivitiesCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz...
Resource Leveling                                                       Initial Resource Profile                          ...
Resource Leveling                                                                                  “Leveled” Resource Prof...
Resource Leveling                            Resource – Constrained Schedule                                              ...
“How are we Performing and what is Slipping?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz      32
Activity Plan vs. Actual ReportCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz                33
Current and Forecast PCM Variances                                                            70                          ...
PCM Performance Ratio Analysis                       SCS Project Control Milestone Performance: As of May 2006            ...
What About the Schedule Performance              Index from Earned Value Management?               Schedule Performance In...
“What Can Past Performance Tell Us About the Future?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz              37
Linear Projection of PCM Actual Performance                                                             70                ...
Forecast-to-Complete Based on PCM                                            Performance-to-Date                       SCS...
11/02/07                                                         PCM Completion Index                                     ...
Delivery Date Trend vs. Need Date Trend                                                            GRS Delivery Trend     ...
“How Will Changes Impact the Schedule?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz         42
NOAA M-N’ Integration & Test Summary                                         Schedule As of 3/31/01 *Based on Preliminary ...
NOAA M-N’ Integration & Test Summary Schedule:                                                     6/30/02 M Launch *Based...
NOAA-M Launch From VAFB, CA –                       6/24/02Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz       45
“What-If” Analysis of Schedule                                 Confidence Level                      GPM Core LRD: Schedul...
“How Are Our Contractors/Suppliers Performing?”           The schedule analysis           techniques described           t...
Critical Parts Status Monitoring                                               OIM Instrument Critical Parts Status       ...
“Have Any Schedule Assumptions Changed?” • Assumptions are documented   in:    – Activity constraints    – Dependencies/lo...
“How Can We Get Done Sooner, Recover from this         Delay or Workaround this Problem?”           Approach              ...
Thank you.                             Walt Majerowicz, MBA, PMP                                 ASRC Aerospace Corporatio...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Majerowicz

12,655 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
12,655
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Majerowicz

  1. 1. Schedule Analysis TechniquesWalter Majerowicz, MBA, PMP ASRC Aerospace Corporation NASA Goddard Space Flight Center NASA PM Challenge 2010 February 9-10, 2010 Galveston, Texas Used with permission
  2. 2. Learning Outcomes • This presentation will examine how schedule analysis can help project teams understand: –When will the project finish? –Where is the risk in the schedule? –Do we have enough schedule slack and margin/reserve? –Is the schedule realistic, credible and achievable? –How are we performing and what is slipping? –What can past performance tell us about the future? –How will changes impact the schedule? –How are our contractors/suppliers performing? –Have any of our assumptions changed? –How can we get done sooner, recover from this delay or workaround this problem?Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 2
  3. 3. “When Will the Project Finish?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 3
  4. 4. Critical Path Analysis SCS Project Schedule – at baseline Critical Path at BaselineCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 4
  5. 5. Critical Path Analysis SCS Project Schedule as of 10/31/08 Subsystem B Delayed Delivery threatened Negative Total SlackCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 5
  6. 6. What is Our Confidence in Finishing on Time? Monte Carlo 0 - Total Project : Finish Date 100% 30 Aug 10 95% 09 Aug 10 90% 03 Aug 10 85% 30 Jul 10 Schedule 80% 28 Jul 10 Cumulative Frequency 400 75% 27 Jul 10 70% 23 Jul 10 65% 22 Jul 10 60% 21 Jul 10 55% 20 Jul 10 Hits 50% 19 Jul 10 Risk 200 45% 16 Jul 10 40% 15 Jul 10 35% 14 Jul 10 30% 13 Jul 10 25% 12 Jul 10 20% 09 Jul 10 15% 07 Jul 10 Analysis 0 25 Jul 10 10% 06 Jul 10 5% 02 Jul 10 0% 23 Jun 10 Distribution (start of interval) DemonstrationCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 6
  7. 7. “Where is the Risk in the Schedule?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 7
  8. 8. Risky Business Task 1 A Which activity is least likely Task 1 to start on time?: B A ____ Task 2 B ____ C ____ Task 1 Task 2 Why? C Task 3 (Hint: Assume all dependencies are FS) Task 4Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 8
  9. 9. Riskier Business • Consider two independent activities scheduled to finish on June 10th Probability of • Both activities are needed to fulfill the delivery on-time finish = .90 milestone on June 10th • The probability of Activity A finishing on time is Activity A .90, and the probability of Activity B is .80 • What is the probability of meeting the (Finish June 10th) completion milestone on time? – .90 – .80 Probability of – .72 on-time finish = .80 – .85 – Cannot determine / insufficient data Deliver Activity B June 10th (Finish June 10th)Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 9
  10. 10. Total Slack Trend With Thresholds WBS 1.1.2.2 RTT B Assembly Risk Indicator 35 30 Alert Zone 1 25 Replace cracked Total Slack 20 DRX-002 Test chamber availability delay 15 Alert 10 Zone 2 Troubleshoot 5 noise anomaly 0 Alert Zone 3 -5 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 10
  11. 11. Activity Duration Sensitivity GPM Schedule PDR Model Duration Sensitivity000145 - Propellant Tank: GPM PDR thru Build/Test & Del... 61% 0020 - Risk 53: Design for Demise 37% 0040 - Risk SRB-2: Thermal Design Problems/Issues 27% 000064 - KaPR: PFM Fabrication and Assembly 15% 000232 - Instr I&T - DPR Instr Integ (D) 14%000065 - KaPR: PFM Testing & Delivery to Ka/Ku DPR C... 13%000067 - KuPR: GPM PDR thru Completion of Remaining... 13% 000249 - Obs I&T - Vibe/Acoustics Testing (P) 10% 000246 - Obs I&T - Group 2 Testing (M) 9% 000174 - Flight Gimbal Assembly & Test 9% Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 11
  12. 12. Recognizing Schedule Gaming, Abuse and Data Manipulation Traps – Intentionally reducing or shrinking future activity durations – Keeping two sets of schedule “books,” such as working to “early” dates and reporting to “late” dates? – Inappropriately adding or removing activities – Employing preferential sequencing – Using too many calendars – Manipulating project logic – Over-reporting progress – Over-using constraints – Misusing lags – Hiding slackCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 12
  13. 13. “Do We Have Enough Schedule slack and Margin/Reserve?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 13
  14. 14. Free Slack, Total Slack & Reserve Total Slack Activity 4 can be delayed 5 days before impacting the project delivery (ID#10) Free Slack Activity 5 can be delayed 35 days before impacting the start of activity 6 Schedule Reserve Planned as a “dummy activity” and allocated by the project manager to protect the scheduleCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 14
  15. 15. Total Slack Summary Alpha Project Total Slack Summary Total Slack Summary provides a top level view of project’s slack positionCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 15
  16. 16. Funded Schedule Margin/Reserve Trend C+DH MOD DELIVER TO LAUNCH SITE I&T START LAUNCH KDP-C PDR CDR 11 2 11 2 2 6 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 16
  17. 17. Risk-Based Schedule Reserve Activity Risk Impact Probability Expected ValueObservatory LateMechanical 30 days x .10 = 3 days MGSEIntegrationObservatory Component Vibration 45 days x .20 = 9 days damage TestObservatory Noise 24 days 40 days x .60 = EMI Test anomaly Thermal Instrument 80 days x .50 = 40 days Vacuum failure Test Total Estimated Schedule Reserve 76 daysCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 17
  18. 18. Using Schedule Risk Analysis to Determine Schedule Reserve 0 - Total Project : Finish Date 100% 30 Aug 10 95% 09 Aug 10 Desired 90% 03 Aug 10 Confidence 85% 30 Jul 10 80% 28 Jul 10 Cumulative Frequency 400 Level 75% 27 Jul 10 70% 23 Jul 10 65% 22 Jul 10 60% 21 Jul 10 55% 20 Jul 10 Hits 50% 19 Jul 10 Potential 45% 16 Jul 10 200 Reserve 40% 15 Jul 10 35% 14 Jul 10 30% 13 Jul 10 25% 12 Jul 10 20% 09 Jul 10 15% 07 Jul 10 10% 06 Jul 10 5% 02 Jul 10 0 0% 23 Jun 10 25 Jul 10 Distribution (start of interval)Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 18
  19. 19. “Is the Schedule Realistic, Credible and Achievable?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 19
  20. 20. SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST Yes No Criterion Description Schedule Assessment 1. ___ ___ Does the IMS reflect the total scope of work? 2. ___ ___ Is the correct WBS element identified for each task and milestone in the IMS? Checklist 3. ___ ___ Is the IMS used by all levels of management for project implementation and control? 4. ___ ___ Do all tasks/milestones have interdependencies identified to reflect a credible logical sequence? 5. ___ ___ Are task durations reasonable, measureable, and at appropriate level of detail for effective management? 6. ___ ___ Does the IMS include all contract and/or designated management control milestones? Source: 7. ___ ___ Does IMS reflect accurate current status & credible start/finish forecasts for all to-go tasks and milestones? NASA Schedule 8. ___ ___ Has the IMS been resource loaded and are assigned Management Handbook resources reasonable and available? 9. ___ ___ Is the critical path identifiable and determined by the calculated IMS logic network? 10. ___ ___ Is the critical path credible? http://evm.nasa.gov/handbooks.html 11. ___ ___ Has a Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) been conducted on the IMS within the last three months? 12. ___ ___ Has adequate schedule margin been included and clearly defined within the IMS? 13. ___ ___ Has the IMS content been baselined and is it adequately controlled? 14. ___ ___ Is there an excessive & invalid use of task constraints and relationship leads/lags? 15. ___ ___ Are right task & resource calendars used in the IMS?Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 20
  21. 21. Activity Duration Rules-of-Thumb • Durations should be estimated by the person responsible for the activity (when feasible) • Maximize the use of the Expected Value/3-Point Estimate Method to characterize uncertainty/risk in the activity • Compare estimated durations to actual durations from similar activities on previous projects (when available) • Review duration estimates with experts who have experience with similar types of work (sanity check) • Near-to-intermediate term durations should not exceed one month – Status can easily be determined in one or two accounting periods • “Long” durations render percentage complete determination little more than guesswork • Duration estimates should not be – Padded by the estimator to hide reserve – Reduced by the estimator to “take a challenge” or “buy in” – Arbitrarily cut by management • Always consider availability of key resourcesCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 21
  22. 22. Historic Schedule Analysis • Archive “As Planned” and “As Built” schedules for future comparison to new project schedules • Comparisons can be made between your project schedule and similar projects: – At the detailed or summary activity level – Duration of lifecycle phases – Elapsed time between major milestonesCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 22
  23. 23. Horizontal Integration Traceability Check XYZ Total Project Work Breakdown Structure 1.0 Project 2.0 4.0 Science 6.0 8.0 Launch 10.0 System Mgt. System Engr. /Technology Spacecraft Vehicle/Services I&T 3.0 5.0 7.0 Mission 9.0 Ground SM & A Payload Ops System System 2.2.2.3 Power 6.2.3 Solar Array Design 10.4.1.2. Integrate Reqt. Definition Solar Arrays to S/C 6.2.4 Solar Array Build 6.2.5 Solar Array Test S/A S/A Design Build Integ. S/As Activity 102 Activity 103 to S/C Specify Power Rqts. Activity 406 Activity 101 S/A Test Logic Network Diagram Activity 104Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 23
  24. 24. NEW Over all Rating Project Name: Pr oject XYZ 1.4 R Contractor: ACME Engineering F ile Type: MS Pr oject Current Schedule Status Current Start (earliest activity Early Start date) 1/1/2005 Current Finish (latest activity Early Finish date) 3/16/2008 Schedule Approximate Remaining Work Days 722 Is schedule externally linked to other schedules? N Status Date 6/15/2005 Task & Milestone Count (excl. Summary Tasks) Count % of Total Total Tasks & Milestones 192 Health/Integrity Completed Tasks & Milestones 13 7% To Go Tasks & Milestones 179 93% Logic (excl. Summary & Started/Completed Tasks) Tasks & Milestones Without Predecessors 75 42% R Tasks & Milestones Without Successors 73 41% R Check Constraints (other than ASAP) and Deadlines 102 57% R Summaries with Logic Ties ** 1 1% G Tasks & Milestones Needing Updates 21 12% R Actuals after Status Date 2 1% Y Tasks marked as Milestones (have Duration > 0) 0 0% G Demonstration Additional Schedule Infor mation Tasks with No Finish Ties 20 11% Recurring Tasks 0 0% Tasks & Milestones with Estimated Durations 15 8% Schedule traceable to WBS (Y/N) Yes Realistic Critical Path(s) (Y/N) No Schedule Baselined (Y/N) No Resource Loaded (Y/N) No Tasks & Milestones with 10 days or less TF 1 1% Tasks with Total Float > 25% of Rem Dur 148 83% Copyright © 2009 by Walter MajerowiczCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 24
  25. 25. Vertical Integration Traceability Check 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Master C & DH Schedule ACS Power J F MAM J J A S O N D J Vertical Intermediate / Battery Schedule Summary Integration Solar Array Schedule PIU Detail Work Schedule Package Activities PIU Detail ScheduleCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 25
  26. 26. Project Control Milestone* Method “S” Curve Check 70 60 50 “S” Curve = Realism *Baseline Look for:Early Finish  Slow start Dates 40  Ramp up  Level off Baseline 30 20 10 0 Oct 05 Nov 05 Dec 05 Jan 06 Feb 06 Mar 06 Apr 06 May 06 Jun 06 Jul 06 Aug 06 Sep 06 Cum Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 Cum Actual Cum Forecast Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 26
  27. 27. Resource Leveling Initial Critical Path Method ScheduleCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 27
  28. 28. Resource Leveling Resources are Allocated or “Loaded” into ActivitiesCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 28
  29. 29. Resource Leveling Initial Resource Profile Apr 16, 06 Apr 23, 06 M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W 300% Mechanical 250% Tech II Capacity: 200%  1 tech 150%  1-8-5 100% 50%Peak Units:Peak Units 300% 300% 200% 200% 200% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Mech Tech II Overallocated: Allocated: The shortage or over-commitment of resources is determined by profiling the needed resources and comparing them to their availability or capacity. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 29
  30. 30. Resource Leveling “Leveled” Resource Profile Apr 16, 06 Apr 23, 06 Apr 30, 06 M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F 100% 80% Original 11 work day 60% plan (before leveling) 7 additional 40% work days are needed 20% (after leveling)Peak Units: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Mech Tech II Overallocated: Allocated: Management decides to “level” or smooth the “Mechanical Tech II” resource allocation to fit the available capacity of one MTII. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 30
  31. 31. Resource Leveling Resource – Constrained Schedule Before Leveling After Leveling “Leveling” the resources results in a more realistic schedule, but delivery may not happen on 4/25/06 as anticipated.Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 31
  32. 32. “How are we Performing and what is Slipping?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 32
  33. 33. Activity Plan vs. Actual ReportCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 33
  34. 34. Current and Forecast PCM Variances 70 60 (Baseline and forecast are Early 50 Plan vs. Forecast Baseline Quantity of PCMs Variance Finish dates) 40 Forecast 30 Plan vs. Actual Variance 20 Actual 10 0 Oct 05 Nov 05 Dec 05 Jan 06 Feb 06 Mar 06 Apr 06 May 06 Jun 06 Jul 06 Aug 06 Sep 06 Cum Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 Cum Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16 Cum Forecast 16 27 39 56 65Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 34
  35. 35. PCM Performance Ratio Analysis SCS Project Control Milestone Performance: As of May 2006 2005 2006 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov CUM Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 CUM Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16 TO DATE 16 milestones ÷ 8 months = 2 per month (actual rate) 45 milestones ÷ 8 months = 5.6 per month (baseline rate) Cumulative Efficiency to Date: 16 ÷ 45 = .36 0% 50% 100% Less Efficient More Efficient So far, schedule efficiency is .36 - the NBT team is accomplishing, on average, about one third of the planned milestones.Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 35
  36. 36. What About the Schedule Performance Index from Earned Value Management? Schedule Performance Index Formula: SPI = Earned Value (cum) Planned Value (cum) NBT example: SPI = $34M = .40 $85M SPI = .40 PCM Performance Index = .36 For every dollar of work 36% of the planned milestones planned, 40 cents of work is have been accomplished being accomplished Look for an approximate correlation between the two values and investigate reasons for significant differences.Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 36
  37. 37. “What Can Past Performance Tell Us About the Future?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 37
  38. 38. Linear Projection of PCM Actual Performance 70 60 (Baseline and forecast are Early 50 Baseline Quantity of PCMs Finish dates) 40 Forecast 30 20 Actual 10 0 Oct 05 Nov 05 Dec 05 Jan 06 Feb 06 Mar 06 Apr 06 May 06 Jun 06 Jul 06 Aug 06 Sep 06 Cum Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 Cum Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16 Cum Forecast 16 27 39 56 65Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 38
  39. 39. Forecast-to-Complete Based on PCM Performance-to-Date SCS Project Control Milestone Performance: As of May 2006 2005 2006 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov CUM Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 CUM Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16 TO DATE FORECAST BASED ON PERFORMANCE 16 PCMs completed Performance to date = 2 per month 8 months planned 49 PCMs remaining to finish (65-16 = 49) 16 ÷ 8 = 2 PCMs per month 49 ÷ 2 = 24.5 months ! Based on the historic rate of performance of 2 PCMs per month, NBT will not finish for another 24.5 months – 20.5 months later than the baseline schedule.Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 39
  40. 40. 11/02/07 PCM Completion Index Electronics Module Milestone Completion 1.20 Performance Index Performance Actual M/S = 1.10 Index Planned M/S 1.00 PI past 18 Actuals = = 19% .90 5 wks 97 Planned . 80 Projection Approx. 5 mos. Remaining to EM del. to SEIT PCM Completion Index .70 10/26/07 – 03/28/08 5 mos = 26.3 mos. to EM delivery .60 .19 Current Performance 5 mos .50 = 12.5 mos. to EM delivery .40 Performance .40 5 mos = 8.3 mos. to EM delivery .60 Performance .30 5 mos = 6.25 mos. to EM delivery .20 .80 Performance 5 mos = 5 mos. to EM delivery .10 1.00 Performance .00 Mar 07 Apr 07 May 07 Jun 07 Jul 07 Aug 07 21 28 05 12 19 26 02 09 16 23 30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 01 08 15 Sept 07 Oct 07 Nov 07 Dec 07 Jan 08 Feb 08 Month/Week Mar 07 Apr 07 May 07 Jun 07 Jul 07 Aug 07 21 28 05 12 19 26 02 09 16 23 30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 01 08 15Baseline Monthly/wklyFinishes 48 58 82 54 42 Re- B/L 130 23 33 23 14 8Actual Monthly/wkly in 44 26 28 36 14 130 3 5 5 4 1Finishes process% Complete 92% 45% 34% 67% 33% 100%13% 15% 22% 29% 13% Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 40
  41. 41. Delivery Date Trend vs. Need Date Trend GRS Delivery Trend As of: December 31, 2007 2011 JanForecast I&T Need DateForecast Delivery Date 2010 Dec Instrument I&T Sequence Change 2010 Nov Detector Problem 2010 Oct Subcontract CCAS T/V Chamber Re-Certification 2010 Sept Facility Move to 2010 Denver Aug 2010 Jul Contract J F M A M J J A S O N D Award ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 Month End Status Date Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 41
  42. 42. “How Will Changes Impact the Schedule?”Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 42
  43. 43. NOAA M-N’ Integration & Test Summary Schedule As of 3/31/01 *Based on Preliminary LMMS Rev S Schedule “What-If” the launch was delayed to 6/30/02? Foot Notes: 1. A303 Removal; Installation of Mass Models* 2. A303 Re-Integration & IPF/DET* 6. A303 Installation on N’ 5/13/01 3. SEM & SBUV* Removal 7. SBUV Delivery 7/6/01 * = Not yet in LMMS Master Schedule 4. SEM & SBUV* Re-Integration 8. SARP/ADCS Delivery 4/30/02 5. SARR Delivery 6/15/01 9. SARP & ADCS Integration*Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 43
  44. 44. NOAA M-N’ Integration & Test Summary Schedule: 6/30/02 M Launch *Based on Preliminary LMMS Rev S Schedule Possible delays in completing remaining Spacecraft + EOC extension Foot Notes: 1. SEM, SBUV, AVHRR & H303 Removal 6. SEM & SBUV* Re-Integration 2. SEM, SBUV, AVHRR & H303 Re-Integration 7. SARP & ADCS Software Upgrades* 3. A303 Removal; Installation of Mass Model* 8. SARP/ADCS Delivery 4/30/02 4. A303 Re-Integration & IPF/DET* 9. SARP & ADCS Integration* 5. SEM & SBUV* Removal * = Not yet in LMMS Master ScheduleCopyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 44
  45. 45. NOAA-M Launch From VAFB, CA – 6/24/02Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 45
  46. 46. “What-If” Analysis of Schedule Confidence Level GPM Core LRD: Schedule Confidence Level Comparison GPM Schedule PDR Model - Core Launch Readiness Date with Discrete Risks GPM Schedule PDR Model - Core Launch Readiness Date+Titanium Tank & Controlled Re-entry Variation: 33.3 days 100% 80% 26/Aug/13 24/Jul/13 Cumulative Probability 60% 40% 20% 0% 06/May/13 25/Jun/13 14/Aug/13 03/Oct/13 22/Nov/13 11/Jan/14 02/Mar/14Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 46
  47. 47. “How Are Our Contractors/Suppliers Performing?” The schedule analysis techniques described today also apply to your contractors/suppliers Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 47
  48. 48. Critical Parts Status Monitoring OIM Instrument Critical Parts Status As of: May 29, 2009 Part Vendor EM Proto-Flight FM-2 SpareBackplane Emerald MFGPhase Lock Oscillator MalvernDROS ParatechHarness TVCPhaser Interspace PWA General AvionicsPower Converter GOULDI/O Controller PWA General AvionicsEnclosure Bell MachiningReal Time Clock PWA General AvionicsONC Filters Spellman Filter Co. Late (Major Late (Potential Received On Schedule Impact to I&T Impact to I&T) Anticipated) Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 48
  49. 49. “Have Any Schedule Assumptions Changed?” • Assumptions are documented in: – Activity constraints – Dependencies/logic – Activity durations – Leads and lags – Calendars – Resources Periodically re-examine your schedule assumptions to determine if they have changed.Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 49
  50. 50. “How Can We Get Done Sooner, Recover from this Delay or Workaround this Problem?” Approach Description Schedule compression technique in which resources are added (orCrashing diverted from non-critical activities) to critical path activities in a way that accomplishes the work faster at the least incremental cost Schedule compression technique in which the logic of activitiesFast Tracking normally performed in sequence is modified so some or all are of the activities are performed in parallel, saving time Examine changes to activity relationships which offset the impact ofAlternative Project Logic delays or support an earlier project completion dateResource vs. Free Slack Trade- Examines the effect of temporarily diverting resources from non- Off Analysis critical path activities with free slack to critical path activitiesAllocate Reserve Use schedule reserve to absorb the impact of schedule delaysDescopes Removal of scope from the project and schedule while still meeting the project’s objectivesReplan / “Rebaseline” Establish a new plan for the remaining effort Evaluation of descope options, alternate work flows, recovery“What-If” Analysis approaches, workaround plans, reserve allocation, additional resources, etc.Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 50
  51. 51. Thank you. Walt Majerowicz, MBA, PMP ASRC Aerospace Corporation walt.majerowicz@nasa.gov walt.majerowicz@gmail.com 301-286-5622Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 51

×