Rapid, Collaborative Planning                    for Global Teams                through Project Design                   ...
Outline                     1. The Challenge of Global Projects                               2. Project Design:          ...
1. The Challenge of Global Projects                        NASA Challenge 2009    Slide 3Global Project Design © 2009     ...
Challenges of                  Teams from different time zones, work cultures, Global Projects                 costs, and ...
Work In 1909:                   Ways of Working An Industrial                    Standard Work     Age                    ...
The Missing Half of Plans is  Century old                              Coordination  assumptions     strongly    embeddedF...
2. Project Design:     Rapid, Accurate, & Shared Plans    including Forecast of Coordination                        NASA C...
Planning and Designing Are Very Different                                          Plan                                  D...
Cost                                  (M$)Project Design:                                 24                              ...
Scope:  Locations, Teams (OBS), Product (PBS),      and Phases (WBS)        Slide 10 Global Project Design © 2009   NASA C...
Architecture:   Complex  dependence (concurrent &    mutual )         Slide 11 Global Project Design © 2009   NASA Challen...
Real‐time Collaborative  Modeling  In different   languages       & points of view        Slide 12 Global Project Design ©...
Project Design                                                         DESIGNER                                Visual mode...
Simulation    generates forecasts rapidly    Includes   coordination effort, costs and schedule impact         Slide 14  G...
Teams examine Forecasts from     multiple   viewpoints:    WBS & PBS         Slide 15  Global Project Design © 2009   NASA...
Coordination is   real effort.    Impact on schedule clearly     visible.         Slide 16  Global Project Design © 2009  ...
Progress  Forecasts                                                                               Drawings                ...
Frequent                                Raw FTE                             Wait          Coord          Go‐Live          ...
Estimation ofCoordination Activity              How can we estimate coordination?   Slide 19Global Project Design © 2009  ...
Dependence an                       Team 1                               Team 2 architectural measure of need             ...
A     B      C                                                                                     E    A        C    D   ...
Aircraft Global                                                               upstream activity                           ...
Sum of Remaining          Activity_From                                                                                   ...
Why dependence                   Coordination is interaction across the architecture  is not enough                   to a...
Coordination                       Team 1                                Team 2Distance is the  Supply Side               ...
0.0: Within small teams with shared tacit knowledge, distance Coordination                   approaches “0” Distance is a ...
Global Factors which influence                                  Communication efficiency                                  ...
Team 1                                                                                                                    ...
Sum of Coordination Cost %                                                                                                ...
Coordination                    If work is complex, teams large, and dependence   Distance                      stretches ...
3. Case Study:       Product Development across 4 Global Regions                        Retrospective Analysis   Slide 31G...
Case Description                  New product family of complex machinery for                                   multiple r...
Scenarios:                    A retrospective analysis:  starting condition data used to ask Original, Options,           ...
Comparison of Forecasts: Schedule Gateways                                         Original Scope                         ...
Comparison of Forecasts: Cost x 4th Gateway                                                                               ...
ConclusionTeams in global projects can succeed through collaborative design of    plans, simulating progress including coo...
The Results of                  Project design generates a plan. And options. The planProject Design                  repr...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Moser.bryan

15,554 views

Published on

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
15,554
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Moser.bryan

  1. 1. Rapid, Collaborative Planning for Global Teams through Project Design Bryan R. Moser bryan@gpdesign.com NASA Challenge 2009 February 24-25, 2009 Slide 1Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  2. 2. Outline 1. The Challenge of Global Projects 2. Project Design: Rapid, Accurate, & Shared Plans  including Forecast of Coordination 3. Case Study:   Global Product Development 4. Conclusion Slide 2Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  3. 3. 1. The Challenge of Global Projects NASA Challenge 2009 Slide 3Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  4. 4. Challenges of  Teams from different time zones, work cultures, Global Projects costs, and abilities. Subsystems and services to be integrated in an  overall solution, yet the “central” team does not  have complete control Costs and risks from coordination,  communication, re‐work, and quality are 40% or  greater of real effort Expected Results difficult to predict with  significantly greater consequences if ignored Slide 4 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  5. 5. Work In 1909: Ways of Working An Industrial  Standard Work Age Narrow specialties Expert management Automated resources Communication, Uncertainty, & Adaptive Behavior are Avoided Slide 5 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  6. 6. The Missing Half of Plans is Century old  Coordination assumptions  strongly  embeddedFalse precision of  detail becomes  substitute for  awareness & adaptive learning The Gantt Chart Circa 1914 Not included in century old methods: Complex Dependence amongst activities Communication & Meetings Decisions, Exceptions, and Re-work Travel, Time Zones, and Workdays Slide 6 Reasons for Waiting related to others Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  7. 7. 2. Project Design: Rapid, Accurate, & Shared Plans including Forecast of Coordination NASA Challenge 2009 Slide 7Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  8. 8. Planning and Designing Are Very Different Plan Design Verb. To work out in Verb. To create the form or some detail how structure of something in a something is to be done or skillful or artistic way. organized. Planning may be sufficient for routine, repeatable projects with limited uncertainty DESIGN is essential to optimize performance and manage risk in enterprise initiatives Slide 8 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  9. 9. Cost (M$)Project Design: 24 Pre-Launch Multiple  Forecasts Forecasts are  1. Project Model Business & Simulation prototype  21 Result Typical“crashes” of real  Option 1 project Likely Result Trade-off Trade- for time with As-Is Behavior 18 Optimized Plan Feasible & Focused 15 for Targeted Scope 2. Design Iteration & Optimization Business Target Hoped For 12 Option 2 3. Trade-Off Dialogue Trade-off Trade- on Feasible Plans for cost 18 24 28 32 36 38 Slide 9 Duration (months) Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  10. 10. Scope: Locations, Teams (OBS), Product (PBS),  and Phases (WBS) Slide 10 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  11. 11. Architecture: Complex  dependence (concurrent &  mutual )  Slide 11 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  12. 12. Real‐time Collaborative  Modeling  In different  languages & points of view Slide 12 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  13. 13. Project Design DESIGNER Visual models to capture project & complexity • Top-down & linked to strategy • Product, work, & teams • Global roles & priorities • Concurrent dependencies Smart Dialogue & Team Collaboration SIMULATOR Unique insight from predictive analytics • Analyzes coordination effort & costs • Real-world behavior & uncertainty • Constraints of team distribution • Detailed output from hi-level input FORECAST Review of realistic plans, scenarios & options •Product & phase schedules •Team progress, efforts, costs •Concurrency, wait, & re-work Slide 13 • opportunities & risk Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  14. 14. Simulation  generates forecasts rapidly Includes  coordination effort, costs and schedule impact Slide 14 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  15. 15. Teams examine Forecasts from  multiple  viewpoints:   WBS & PBS Slide 15 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  16. 16. Coordination is  real effort.  Impact on schedule clearly  visible. Slide 16 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  17. 17. Progress  Forecasts Drawings Drawings Documents Documents Modules Modules Tests Tests Parts Parts Progress in Progress in Percent of Effort Percent of Effort Real World Units, Real World Units, Slide 17 Shown with range of standard Shown with range of standard not just not just deviation and high/low of forecasts deviation and high/low of forecasts Spending & Percent Spending & PercentGlobal Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  18. 18. Frequent  Raw FTE  Wait  Coord  Go‐Live  Cost Model # hrs Forecast Effort hrs % % date $  Description Realistic? Iterations 114 4704 6891 8% 11% 12/24/07 $                    258,692 Added meeting to first modeling approach no & What If  131 138 4704 4600 6838 5735 7% 1% 23% 9% 12/12/07 $                    257,368 Execute Commit not hard gateway 02/19/08 $                    287,472 simple assignments no mutual deps no no Scenarios 139 4600 6450 9% 9% 02/14/08 $                    325,420 simple assignments & 1 mutual dep somewhat 143 4600 10157 35% 8% 02/23/08 $                    427,561 added 3 mutual deps somewhat 144 4600 9082 23% 11% 01/05/08 $                    360,000 Some blended assignments almost 50 or more plans  147 148 4600 4600 7439 7753 12% 14% 18% 15% 12/24/07 $                    293,500 Blended assignments & PMs as Decide 12/20/07 $                    264,988 All Arcana efforts priced at 0 almost (but cost) yes for a complex  153 4600 6748 8% 16% 12/11/07 $                    246,496 From 4 to 5 IT developers in SF yes 154 4600 7067 15% 13% 12/06/07 $                    265,325 From 3 to 4 AST Developers yes project in days Slide 18 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  19. 19. Estimation ofCoordination Activity How can we estimate coordination? Slide 19Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  20. 20. Dependence an  Team 1 Team 2 architectural measure of need Can we predict the amount of coordination effort required to effectively complete our direct work? Dependence What does my team need in the progress & results from others? DEMAND Slide 20 for coordination Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  21. 21. A B C E A C D B G F Dependence A X X E XDesign Structure  B X A X X Matrix (DSM) C X X X X C X X X D X X B X X X Task Dependency in Matrix Form Goal is to sequence and partition G X X X X Some tasks are too tightly linked F X X X D. Steward, 1981 A B C Level of Dependence Level of Dependence To Partition Tightly Coupled A A • • • Small Tasks B • B • Medium McCord, Eppinger, Aug 1993 C • • C • Large A B C Time Duration & Probability A 4 .2 To Predict Total Duration Slide 21 Work Transformation Matrix B .4 7 .5 Smith, Eppinger, Apr 1994 C .3 .1 6 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  22. 22. Aircraft Global  upstream activity Part6 Part1 Part16 Part5 Development  s Project p m r m r m r m r e I f v I f v I f v I f v c F g w F g w F g w F g w 4 major  Part6 IF spec d fs 6ri 5ri fssubsystems with  o a Part6 mfg co 3r time-based Part6 rvw co (finish to start)13 Key activities  w c Part1 IF fs 2r 2r coand Dependence n t Part1 mfg 3r co continuous flow s i Part1 rvw co (parallel) t v Part16 IF fs 4i Part16 mfg co other r i Part16 rvw co (information...) e t Part5 IF fs a y Part5 mfg 4ri 1ri 5ri 5r co m Part5 rvw co release co co co co 1ri early some results&info 2r early most results 5r parallel half results 3r early all results 5ri parallel half info & results 4i early/para, some info 6ri late most info & results 4ri early/para some results&info Slide 22 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  23. 23. Sum of Remaining Activity_From n to sig ign ro De ign ign es n sP oto ot o ip ic es es _D sig nic Pr ro to Pr Sh on rd lD kg De tro P al ctr to na &P ell lec tor ell n st & Activity_To Ele Mo Sig A Sh E Mo Sh Sig Te Electronic Design 288 Dependencies by ActivityFor coordination  Motor Design 168 (DSM) mapped to Team structure  Signal Design 93 Dependence across Teams matters A &Pkg_Design 968 Sum of Remaining Team_From Shell Design 288 Architecture  e rs Electronics Proto 168 m ine ea determines if  es ign up pli er sti cs _T ctr on ics na l E ng oto r Motor Proto 800 CD S Pla Ele Sig M GA dependence  Shell Proto Team_To 320 T1 T2 T2 T2 T2stretches across  Signal Proto GAC Design 288 288 456 teams Test & Ship 288 168 128 93 168 380 T1 Supplier 968 668 93 168 168 128 T2 Plastics_Team 320 T2 Electronics 549 T2 Signal Engineers 576 23 T2 Motor 800 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  24. 24. Why dependence  Coordination is interaction across the architecture  is not enough to allow downstream effective independence.   Teams that aren’t dependent have no need to  coordinate. Even if demanded, coordination is not guaranteed  to occur. Coordination requires attention, priority, &  capacity . Interaction, communication, meetings, learning,  and response consume TIME AND BUDGET.    Slide 24 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  25. 25. Coordination  Team 1 Team 2Distance is the  Supply Side Can we predict the amount of coordination effort required to effectively complete our direct work? Dependence Distance What does my team What is my team’s need in the progress & ability to coordinate results from others? with others? DEMAND SUPPLY Slide 25 for coordination of coordination Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  26. 26. 0.0: Within small teams with shared tacit knowledge, distance Coordination  approaches “0” Distance is a  Measure of  1.0: Between teams with average shared work background, common native language, and co-location, distance is aTeam To Team  nominal “1” Coordination  Ability  Coordination Distance is both a macro-level and micro-level measure e rs a m ine Te nic s ng sig n er s_ lE pli tic tro na r De up s c oto C 1S Pla Ele Sig 2M Team_Name GA T T2 T2 T2 T GAC Design 0.5 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.3 T1 Supplier 1.1 0.2 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.5 T2 Plastics_Team 1.9 1.8 0.3 1.7 2 1.7 T2 Electronics 1.4 1.3 1.7 0.1 1.2 1.4 T2 Signal Engineers 1.2 1.1 2 1.2 0 1.5 26 T2 Motor 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 0.2 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  27. 27. Global Factors which influence  Communication efficiency Some parties working in 2nd language Coordination  Less shared work background Distance Team Size & Capacity Priority of attention to interaction vs. direct work Distribution & time zones Overlap of work hours Latency/ reaction to issues Travels costs and time Exception handling behavior Local work culture & assumptions differ, distract Quality priorities, re-work capacity and attention High chance of misreading indicators Slide 27 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  28. 28. Team 1 Team 2Coordination = Dependence X  Distance Coordination Dependency Matrix Coordination Distance Matrix Sum of Remaining Team_From ers ers ea m ine am ine _T ics ng Te ics ng n er cs on lE sig n r s_ on lE sig pli sti ctr na tor pp lie tic ctr na tor De up De s C 1S Pla Ele Sig Mo C Su Pla Ele Sig Mo Team_To GA T T2 T2 T2 T2 Team_Name GA T1 T2 T2 T2 T2 GAC Design 456 GAC Design 0.5 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.3 T1 Supplier 968 668 93 168 168 128 T1 Supplier 1.1 0.2 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.5 T2 Plastics_Team 320 T2 Plastics_Team 1.9 1.8 0.3 1.7 2 1.7 T2 Electronics 549 T2 Electronics 1.4 1.3 1.7 0.1 1.2 1.4 T2 Signal Engineers 576 T2 Signal Engineers 1.2 1.1 2 1.2 0 1.5 T2 Motor 800 T2 Motor 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 0.2 Coordination 28 Activity (Moser 1997) Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  29. 29. Sum of Coordination Cost % rs am ee Te s gin Team to team n r s_ nic lE n sig lie tic tro na r De pp otoDistribution of  G AC T 1 Su T 2P las T2 Elec T 2 Sig T 2M coordination activityCoordination  GAC Design 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Activity across  Changes phase to phase Teams T1 Supplier 23% Sum of Coordination Cost % 3% 4% 5% Phase_From Team_From 4% 4% 1. Design 2. Prototype 3. Assembly Phase Phase Phase ers am ine T2 Plastics_Team 13% 0% 0% n 0% r 0% ic s 0% s_Te nic s ng r sig lie on c o lE pli e De pp le ctr sti ctr na tor up C 1S u 2E Pla Ele Sig Mo 1S Phase_To Team_To GA T T T2 T2 T2 T2 T 1. GAC Design 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Design Phase T2 Electronics 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% T1 Supplier 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% T2 Signal Engineers 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% T2 Electronics 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% T2 Motor 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2. Prototype Phase T2 Plastics_Team 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% T2 Signal Engineers 0% 0% 8% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% T2 Motor 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% T2 Electronics 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29 3. Assembly Phase T1 Supplier 0% 1% 0% 4% 5% 4% 4% 2% Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  30. 30. Coordination  If work is complex, teams large, and dependence  Distance stretches across distant teams, coordination  Summary  activity tends to increase  Simulator handles dependence and distance  interaction on a micro, transactional level. Distances at a transactional level create local  direct costs and increased duration The architecture determines if local coordination  causes systemic and propagating impacts Systemically, what happens if coordination activity  is not budgeted and prioritized?  Slide 30Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  31. 31. 3. Case Study: Product Development across 4 Global Regions Retrospective Analysis Slide 31Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  32. 32. Case Description New product family of complex machinery for  multiple regional markets Approximately 150,000 hrs of effort for design &  development.  5 Gateways.Gateways 85% of scope was visible before G2.  54% from original product family scope G0 – startG1 – concept 31% for options, not addressed until after G2.G2 – design 15% from scope increase at G3.G3 – engineerG4 – manufactureG5 – release Original Scope Original Scope &  Options Original Scope,  Options, & Scope  32 Increase Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  33. 33. Scenarios:  A retrospective analysis:  starting condition data used to ask Original, Options,  “What could we have known ahead of time?”& Scope Increase  Three Scenarios were modeled;  each simulated using  critical path (CPM) & global factors (GPD) settings. Original Scope CPM refers to the Critical Path Method for scheduling as  Original Scope &  used in traditional project tools.  CPM ignores  Options communication, time zones, mutual dependence, re‐work,  Original Scope,  Options, & Scope  and other global factors. Increase GPD refers to analysis by GPDs TeamPort which  incorporates communication, complex concurrency, re‐ work, time‐zones and other factors. 33 Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  34. 34. Comparison of Forecasts: Schedule Gateways Original Scope Original Scope &  Options Original Scope,  Options, & Scope  Increase Gateways G0 – start G1 – concept G2 – design G3 – engineer G4 – manufacture G5 – release Slide 34 Global Project Design © 2009NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  35. 35. Comparison of Forecasts: Cost x 4th Gateway Original Scope Original Scope &  Options Actual Original Scope,  Options, & Scope  Increase @ G4 GPD PM Gateways @ G3 @ G2 G0 – start CPM G1 – concept @ G1 G2 – design G3 – engineer G4 – manufacture PM forecasts by project team at each Gate during project. CPM forecasts (critical path) ignore coordination, concurrency, and re-work realities. GPD forecasts consider coordination, concurrency, re-work, time-zones and other global project realities 35 Global Project Design © CPM & GPD forecasts generated by TeamPort 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  36. 36. ConclusionTeams in global projects can succeed through collaborative design of plans, simulating progress including coordination, exposing assumptions, and generating situational awareness. Slide 36Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
  37. 37. The Results of  Project design generates a plan. And options. The planProject Design represents teams’ consensus of role, feasibility, optimality, and coordination approach. The plan is a social instrument; a dialogue amongst teams, not just a control instrument. Teams interact from their own point of view. Failure is visual before starting; allows team leaders to re-think how to participate. Architecture and complex dependence emphasized. The exercise exposes ideological assumptions and prevents wishful thinking. Teams see sensitivity of total project results to their own actions. Situational awareness and performance emerge as teams understand, commit, rehearse, and adapt Slide 37 ongoing with the plan. Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com

×