The document discusses project scheduling and management strategies, emphasizing the importance of realistic scheduling, risk-adjusted forecasting, and the use of Acumen's software tools for schedule optimization. It outlines methodologies for measuring schedule quality and compliance, along with case studies showcasing the implementation of these strategies to improve project outcomes. Ultimately, it highlights how effective planning and analytics can drive project success and on-time completion.

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 Optimized
S1: 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-Aligned
S1: 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
//