esd.36j system & project managementdspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/80702/esd...title:...
Post on 20-Feb-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
ESD.36J System & Project Management
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Dynamics of Project Performance
System Dynamics and Project Management
Lecture #17, SD Class Six (10/30/00)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 2
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Topics
• Review Homework #4
• Managing Project Dynamics -- A Strategic View of Project Preparation (Review of last class)
• Managing Project Dynamics -- A Strategic View of Project Planning
• Schedule Adjustments & Homework #6
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 3
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Example Response
Boss: The project must finish as close to schedule as possible. Let’s hire more people if we fall behind in order to catch up.You: My analysis shows that if we hire people to catch up, we will finish sooner than not hiring, but the project will cost a lot more …
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 4
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Staff level increases significantly and the project costs more
Staff Level20
15
10
5
00 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
Staff Level : Hiring PeopleStaff Level : No Hiring People
Cumulative Effort Expended400
300
200
100
00 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
Cumulative Effort Expended : Hiring Month*PersonCumulative Effort Expended : No Hiring Month*Person
Plan
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 5
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Because hiring inexperienced people reduces quality …
Quality1
0.75
0.5
0.25
00 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
Quality : Hiring FractionQuality : No Hiring Fraction
Effect of Experience on Quality1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.60 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
Effect of Experience on Quality : Hiring DimensionlessEffect of Experience on Quality : No Hiring Dimensionless
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 6
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Causing us to do more total work at lower productivity
Cumulative Work Done200
150
100
50
00 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
Cumulative Work Done : Hiring TasksCumulative Work Done : No Hiring Tasks
Productivity2
1.65
1.3
0.95
0.60 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
Productivity : Hiring Task/(Month*Person)Productivity : No Hiring Task/(Month*Person)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 7
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Well, okay, but why do we still finish late?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 8
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Because of delays in hiring people, and because we overestimate the net progress the new staff will make. Note that average productivity, the way we decide how many staff to hire, is always declining and hence we tend to underestimate staff needs.
Average Productivity1
0.75
0.5
0.25
00 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
Average Productivity : Hiring Task/(Month*Person)Average Productivity : No Hiring Task/(Month*Person)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 9
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Hiring generally costs more, but only makes project later if experience very low …
Graph for Staff Level60
45
30
15
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Staff Level : Class4 Hire 100 PeopleStaff Level : Class4 Hire 0 PeopleStaff Level : Class4 PeopleStaff Level : Class4 Hire People
Hire, 0.0 Initial Experience, Cost =493
No Hiring, Cost = 170
Hire, 1.0 Initial Experience, Cost = 165
Hire, 0.5 Initial Experience, Cost = 231
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 10
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
What is your experience?
Software vs. hardware vs. …[Remember that in this relatively simple model
experience is used as a proxy for a number of separate effects, including different types of experience (on the project, on similar projects, as an engineer); dilution of experienced staff time; size, and changes in the size, of the organization]
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 11
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Topics
• Review Homework #4
• Managing Project Dynamics -- A Strategic View of Project Preparation (Review of last class)
• Managing Project Dynamics -- A Strategic View of Project Planning
• Schedule Adjustments & Homework #6
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 12
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Typical project dynamics ...
ProjectStaffing
Time
TypicalPlan
... Result in schedule &/or budget overrun
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 13
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
What can we do to avoid/minimize in ...
… project preparation (design)… project planning and risk management… project execution and adaptation
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 14
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Strategic “Project” Management Pertains to Both Preparation & Planning
ProjectPreparation
ProjectPlanning
ProjectExecution
ProjectAdaptation
Doing the right job
Doing the job right
Strategic Project Management
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 15
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
How Do The Dynamics It Get Started?
Inconsistent “mission” (scope/schedule/defects/budget)Late changes and other risks“Quality” problems
These are characteristics of “complex”(vs. “simple”) projects
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Mission Dimensions
Time-to-Market/Schedule
High, Stretch Medium Low, Slack
Features / Scope
Defects/ UndiscoveredRework
Resources / Cost
Priority & Specific Objectives
What should the “objectives” be? How many can be “high” priority?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 17
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Late Project Changes Can Create the Dynamics As Well
“Changes”20% of tasks done obsoleted at month 15Put into undiscovered rework (what needs to be redone often not completely known when “change” is made).
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 18
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
What causes project “quality” problems?
Remember, quality as used in the model is any work done incorrectly or incompletely, regardless of cause
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 19
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
What causes project “quality” problems?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 20
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
What are differences between “changes” and “quality” problems?
Changes represent truly unknowable, uncontrollable, exogenous impacts (though the fact that they often happen might be planned for)
competitor introduces a new feature...
“Quality” problems can be anticipated and dealt with in the design and management of the project
buffers, prototypes, process, ...
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 21
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
How might we represent these “exogenous” factors in the model?
Availability and quality of information from others (suppliers, other projects, platforms) (time-based effect on quality)Uncertain customer requirements (fraction-complete-based effect on quality)Uncertain technology, technology leap (normal quality)Scope (esp. number of features and resultant complexity) (normal quality)Other -- type of people available, tools, organization structure (normal quality)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 22
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Availability and Quality of Info from Others (suppliers, other projects)
Lookup - Table for Effect of Supplier In
1.0
00 20
Quality
Effect of Prior WorkQuality on Quality
Normal Quality
Effect of SchedulePressure on Quality
Effect ofExperience on
Quality
Effect of SupplierInformation
Table for Effect ofSupplier Information
Project Time (month)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 23
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Staff Level20
15
10
5
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Staff Level : Plan PeopleStaff Level : Plan Work 125 PeopleStaff Level : Changes PeopleStaff Level : Uncertain Customer Requirements People
Plan
Uncertain Customer Requirements
ChangesInconsistent Mission
… Imposed on the Class4/Homework 4 Model
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 24
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
How can we design a project that minimizes the chances of the dynamics getting started?
Consistent mission?Reflects typical quality problems?Accounts for possible changes and risks?
Note: Source of problem affects solution
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 25
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Lessons from 10/10 Class on Mission
Getting a feasible project design is the first step to avoiding adverse project dynamicsPrior projects are the best source of information with which to design a robust projectThere is an optimal tradeoff among scope, budget, schedule, and delivered defects which varies with relative priority of mission elements
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 26
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Topics
• Review Homework #1
• Managing Project Dynamics -- A Strategic View of Project Preparation (Review of last class)
• Managing Project Dynamics -- A Strategic View of Project Planning
• Schedule Adjustments
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 27
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Selected Issues in Project Planning
Selecting the process modelDefining teams and responsibilitiesActivity planning and resource allocationSchedulingDetermining what to measure, monitor, exert pressure on (reward)Identifying risks and mitigation plans
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 28
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Strategic Process & Organization Issues
Waterfall vs. spiral vs. adaptive vs. …?Autonomous (dedicated) integrated product team vs. functional?System vs. modules?How much phase overlap and concurrency?How much to subcontract, make vs. buy?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 29
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Strategic Staffing Issues
How much to rely on overtime (vs. adding staff)?Should you pay extra for experience?Generalists vs. specialists?Co-location vs. geographically dispersed?How much training?How much is it worth to reduce attrition?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 30
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
How do you decide on a specific process?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 31
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
The “Class6” Base Case -- Suppose
Uncertain customer requirements cause quality problems early in the project
normal quality = .95all other parameters as in Homework4 Model
Assume waterfall model with functional organization structure
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 32
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Uncertain Customer Requirements
Fraction Complete
Table for Effect ofUncertain Customer
Requirements Effect of UncertainCustomerRequirements
Fraction Perceivedto Be Complete
Quality
Normal Quality
Effect of PriorWork Quality
Effect ofExperience
Effect of SchedulePressure
- Table for Effect of Uncertain Custom
1.0
00 1.0
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 33
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Uncertain Customer Requirements (alternative allowing easy change of max)
Quality
Effect of Prior WorkQuality on Quality
Normal Quality
Effect of SchedPressure on Qu
Effect ofExperience on
Quality
Effect of UncertainCustomer
RequirementsTable for Effect of
Uncertain CustomerRequirements
Fraction Perceivedto be Complete
Maximum Effect ofUncertain Customer
Requirements
Elimination ofUncertainty Based on
Progress
up - Table for Effect of Uncertain Custom
1
00 1
Fraction Complete
Effect = (Maximum Effect of Uncertain Customer Requirements+(1-Maximum Effect of Uncertain Customer Requirements)*Elimination of Uncertainty Based on Progress)
(0.85 in Class6 Model)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 34
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Elimination of Uncertainty Reflects a “Waterfall” Approach to Development -- A Sequential Series of Tasks With Milestones & Handoffs
up - Table for Effect of Uncertain Custom
1
00 1
Analysis & Requirements
Design
Code
Test
Fraction Complete
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 35
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Staff Level20
15
10
5
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Staff Level : Class 5 Uncertain Customer Requirements PeopleStaff Level : Class 5 Plan People
Uncertain Customer Requirements
Completion: Month 38.875 (30 planned)
Cost: 263 Person-months (115 plan)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 36
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Effects on Quality ...Quality
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Quality : Class 5 Uncertain Customer Requirements FractionEffect of Prior Work Quality on Quality : Class 5 Uncertain Customer Requirements FractionEffect of Experience on Quality : Class 5 Uncertain Customer Requirements FractionEffect of Schedule Pressure on Quality : Class 5 Uncertain Customer Requirements FractionEffect of Uncertain Customer Requirements : Class 5 Uncertain Customer Requirements Fraction
QualityPrior Quality
Uncertain Customer Requirements
Experience
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 37
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Strategic Process & Organization Issues
Waterfall vs. spiral vs. adaptive vs. …?Autonomous (dedicated) integrated product team vs. functional?System vs. modules?How much phase overlap and concurrency?How much to subcontract, make vs. buy?
How do we assess what is right for our project?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 38
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Waterfall vs. Spiral: Spiral ...
Pros Cons
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 39
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Waterfall vs. Spiral: Spiral … (comments from an earlier class)
ProsEarly feedback from
customerDeliver parts of
system earlierStart building
sooner...
ConsCosts more --
greater scope, bigger team, more co-ordination
Fuzzier definition of project tasks and deliverables
Harder to define when done
...
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 40
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
What are the pros and cons of above alternatives in the context of the model framework?
Direct impacts of alternatives (steady-state vs. dynamic) --
Scopeproductivityqualityrework discoverystrength of productivity and quality effects...
Secondary impacts (assessed via simulation)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 41
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Analysis & Requirements
Design
Code
Test
Analysis & Requirements
Design
Code
Test
Analysis & Requirements
Design
Code
Test
An Iterative Development Process -- How might it affect elimination of uncertainty?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 42
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Waterfall vs. Spiral: Sample Test
Spiral of 3 phasesMaximum Time to Discover Rework
Waterfall = 12 monthsSpiral = 4 months
Continued ...
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 43
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Waterfall vs. Spiral: Sample Test (cont.)
Elimination of Uncertainty Based on Progress …Waterfall Spiral
"Table for Effect of Uncertain Custome
1
00 1
Fraction Complete Fraction Complete
??
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 44
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Waterfall vs. Spiral: Sample Test (cont.)
Elimination of Uncertainty Based on Progress …Waterfall Spiral
- "Table for Effect of Uncertain Custome
1
00 1
"Table for Effect of Uncertain Custome
1
00 1
Fraction Complete Fraction Complete
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 45
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
How do we know these values?
First time, you don’t ==> make educated guesses. Remember --
Better than mental models aloneCan do sensitivities -- how bad would the scope increase have to be before Spiral was not helpful for this type of project
Once project finishes, can get a good estimate of the impact for use in future planning
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 46
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Waterfall vs. Spiral
TestPlanWaterfallSpiral
Finish Cost(person-mos)29.875 116.738.875 263.331.45 171.5
Note: alternative process, etc. generally do not allow you to achieve an inconsistent plan, but they can improve performance along one or more mission objectives.
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 47
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Waterfall vs. Spiral (added scope)
TestPlanWaterfallSpiralSpiral + 10% more scopeSpiral + 20% Spiral + 30%
Finish Cost(person-mos)29.875 116.738.875 263.331.45 171.5
32.1 216.1
32.625 261.233.1 307.7
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 48
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Staff Level20
15
10
5
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Staff Level : Class6 Spiral + More Scope PeopleStaff Level : Class6 Spiral PeopleStaff Level : Class6 Waterfall PeopleStaff Level : Class6 Plan People
Plan
WaterfallSpiral + 10% More Scope
Spiral
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 49
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Quality1
0.75
0.5
0.25
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Quality : Class6 Spiral + More Scope FractionQuality : Class6 Spiral FractionQuality : Class6 Waterfall FractionQuality : Class6 Plan Fraction
Plan
Waterfall
Spiral
Spiral + 10% More Scope
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 50
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Undiscovered Rework40
30
20
10
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Undiscovered Rework : Class6 Spiral + More Scope TaskUndiscovered Rework : Class6 Spiral TaskUndiscovered Rework : Class6 Waterfall TaskUndiscovered Rework : Class6 Plan Task
Plan
Waterfall
Spiral Spiral + 10% More Scope
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 51
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Work Done200
150
100
50
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Work Done : Class6 Spiral + More Scope TaskWork Done : Class6 Spiral TaskWork Done : Class6 Waterfall TaskWork Done : Class6 Plan Task
Plan Waterfall
Spiral
Spiral + 10% More Scope
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 52
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Conclusions re. Waterfall vs. Spiral
A spiral or similar development process can improve performance if project conditions would otherwise cause significant undiscovered reworkThe benefits of these approaches increase with the uncertainty (risk) in the development, I.e., the amount of potential reworkCautions -- alternative processes may …
… not help for truly “exogenous” changes… involve additional scope… involve short-term implementation costs (for new processes/tools/structures)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 53
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Even with better processes, there are tradeoffs among the mission objectives
TestPlanWaterfallSpiralWaterfall + Schedule = 47Spiral + Schedule = 35
Finish Cost(person-mos)29.875 116.738.875 263.331.45 171.5
46.5 185.7
34.2 135.9
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 54
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Staff Level20
15
10
5
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Staff Level : Class6 Waterfall PeopleStaff Level : Class6 Spiral PeopleStaff Level : Class6 Waterfall Sched 40 No Hire PeopleStaff Level : Class6 Spiral No Hire People
Waterfall
Waterfall, Schedule =47
Spiral
Spiral, Schedule = 35
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 55
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Strategic Process & Organization Issues
Waterfall vs. spiral vs. adaptive vs. …?Autonomous (dedicated) integrated
product team vs. functional?System vs. modules?How much phase overlap and concurrency?[How much to subcontract, make vs. buy?]
How do we assess what is right for our project?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 56
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Autonomous Integrated Teams vs. Functional: Autonomous Teams ...
Pros Cons
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 57
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Autonomous Integrated Teams vs. Functional: Sample Test
Maximum effect of uncertain customer requirements = .85Waterfall-style Elimination of Uncertain Customer RequirementsIntegrated Teams:
Reduce Max effect of customer uncertainty to .925Reduce Maximum rework discovery time to 4 months (from 12 months)Reduce Normal productivity to .9 (from 1)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 58
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Staff Level20
15
10
5
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Staff Level : Class6 Plan PeopleStaff Level : Class6 Waterfall PeopleStaff Level : Class6 Integrated Teams People
Plan
Waterfall
Integrated Product Team
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 59
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Quality1
0.75
0.5
0.25
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Quality : Class6 Plan FractionQuality : Class6 Waterfall FractionQuality : Class6 Integrated Teams Fraction
Plan
Waterfall
Integrated Product Team
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 60
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph for Undiscovered Rework40
30
20
10
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60
Time (Month)
Undiscovered Rework : Class6 Plan TaskUndiscovered Rework : Class6 Waterfall TaskUndiscovered Rework : Class6 Integrated Teams Task
Plan
Waterfall
Integrated Product Team
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 61
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Autonomous Integrated Teams vs. Functional
TestPlanWaterfall (functional)Integrated Product Team
Finish Cost(person-mos)29.875 116.7
38.875 263.3
31.625 189.38
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 62
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Conclusions re. Integrated Teams
An integrated product team or similar organization structure can improve performance if project conditions would otherwise cause significant undiscovered reworkThe benefits of these structures increase with the uncertainty (risk), and likely project overrun with traditional development approachesCautions ...
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 63
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Strategic Staffing Issues
How much to rely on overtime (vs. adding staff)?
Should you pay extra for experience?Generalists vs. specialists?Co-location vs. geographically dispersed?How much training?How much is it worth to reduce attrition?
How do we assess what is right for our project?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 64
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
How do we assess what is right for our project?
Specify the direct impacts of alternatives (steady-state vs. dynamic) on --
Scopeproductivityqualityrework discoverystrength of productivity and quality effects...
Secondary impacts (assessed via simulation)
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 65
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Strategic Process & Organization Issues
Waterfall vs. spiral vs. adaptive vs. …?Autonomous (dedicated) integrated
product team vs. functional?System vs. modules?How much phase overlap and
concurrency?How much to subcontract, make vs. buy?
…defer until next class?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 66
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Strategic Project Management
What can we do to avoid/minimize the dynamics ... … in project preparation (design) and project planning? √ (except risk management)… in project execution and adaptation
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 67
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Lessons
It’s the undiscovered rework that creates problemsAlternative development processes can improve performance if project conditions would otherwise cause significant undiscovered reworkStrategic issues (process, staffing, phase overlap, etc.) involve tradeoffs -- costs as well as benefits -- that can only be evaluated in the context of their effect on the ability of the project to meet its mission objectives -- There is no one best way for all projects
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 68
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Topics
• Review Homework #1
• Managing Project Dynamics -- A Strategic View of Project Preparation (Review of last class)
• Managing Project Dynamics -- A Strategic View of Project Planning
• Schedule Adjustments & Homework #6
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 69
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Strategic Issues in Execution and Adaptation
ProjectPreparation
ProjectPlanning
ProjectExecution
ProjectAdaptation
Doing the right job
Doing the job right
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 70
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Selected Issues in Execution & Adaptation
Managing Risks and Changes:Schedule adjustments Staffing strategies
A Strategic View – Deciding in advance the best way to handle problems if
they arise
-
ESD.36J System & Project Management
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Schedule Adjustments
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 72
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Staffing and Scheduling Are Driven By the Same Basic Structure ...
Indicated CompletionDate Based on
Progress
Average Productivity
Estimated Cost to Complete
Staff Level Required
Time Remaining
Mimimum Time toFinish Work
Estimated Cost toComplete Based on
Progress
Budgeted Cost toComplete
Weight onProgress-Based
Estimates
Table for Weight onProgress-Based
Estimates
Person-Months
Staff Level
Hiring and/or Schedule Slip are governed by “Willingness to Hire” and “Willingness to Slip”
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 73
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Schedule Slip Formulation
ScheduledCompletionDate
IndicatedCompletionDate Basedon Progress
PerceivedReal
CompletionDateSchedule
SlipTable forSchedule
Slip
Willingnessto Slip
Time to Slip Schedule
Change in Schedule
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 74
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Schedule Slip Formulation (cont.)
Scheduled Completion Date = Integral of Schedule Slip over Time to Slip Schedule [Dimensions -- Month]Schedule Slip = Willingness to Slip * MAX(0,(Perceived Real Completion Date -Scheduled Completion Date)) * Table for Schedule Slip [Dimensions -- Months]
The desired schedule slip is determined by the difference between perceived real completion date and the current schedule. Willingness to slip and table for schedule slip allow you to control the degree and timing of any slip.
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 75
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Schedule Slip Formulation (cont.)
Perceived Real Completion Date = SMOOTHI(Indicated Completion Date Based on Progress, 1, Scheduled Completion Date) [Dimensions -- Month]
Perceived real completion date reflects the time required to perceive changes in project conditions, using VENSIM's SMOOTHI function.
Indicated Completion Date Based on Progress -- see schedule pressure
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 76
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Schedule Slip Formulation (cont.)Willingness to Slip Schedule -- varies between 0 and 1; a value of 0 means no schedule slip, staff up to get the project done; a value of 1 means slip the schedule as indicated to allow the current staff to get the job done
Table for Schedule Slip -- a function of Fraction Perceived to be Complete. When Willingness is set above 0, allows you to control when in the project the slip occurs.
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 77
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Graph Lookup - Table for Schedule Slip
1
00 1.5
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 78
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
In the face of a projected schedule overrun, is it better to slip as soon as you know it or wait and see if corrective actions will help?
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 79
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
Homework #6 has been posted, due 11/14
-
- ESD.36J SPM9/23/03 80
+
-
Copyright © 2003James M. Lyneis
What causes project “quality” problems?
Endogenous feedback effectsExogenous factors (“normal quality”)
Availability and quality of information from others (suppliers, other projects, platforms) Uncertain customer requirementsUncertain technology, technology leapScope (esp. number of features and resultant complexity)Other -- type of people available, tools, organization structure
top related