esd.36j system & project management - … path method/pert critical path 0 c,20 20 20 e,20 f,40...

ESD.36J System & Project Management

Dynamics of Project Performance+

-

Strategic Issues in Project Preparation and Planning

SD Class Five (10/7/03)

Copyright © 2003 James M. Lyneis

+

- Topics

�Homework Review and Module One Wrapup

�Project Management – A “Strategic” View

�Managing Project Dynamics -Project Preparation and Planning

Copyright © 2003 10/7/03 - ESD.36J SPM James M. Lyneis 2

+

- Topics





+

-Homework Assignments

� HW1: Network Planning Techniques � HW2: Task based DSM � HW3: Design a Project Organization � HW4: SD – verify Brook’s law � HW5: Case study comparison � HW6: SD – project adapation

Discuss MasterSolution


+

-HW1 Solution

UAV Project

Reducing Critical Path [Kerzner]: • Transferring resources to critical paths • Elimination of some parts of the project • Addition of more resources • Substitution of less time-consuming tasks • Parallelization of activities • Shortening critical path activities • Shortening early activities • Shortening longest activities • Shortening easiest activities • Shortening activities least costly to speed up • Increasing the number of work hours per day

(EF) June 4, 2008 Copyright © 2003

10/7/03 - ESD.36J SPM James M. Lyneis 5

+

-HW1 Solution (cont.)

�

�

(EF) June 6, 2008

GFEengine Setting target dates for suppliers: � GFE Æ day 29 � Engine Æ day 44 (51)

Probability of finishing by day 100 � TE(m)=20, TV(m)=4 � TE(n)=25, TV(n)=25 � z=(100-110)/sqrt(29)=-1.86 � Probability 3.1%


+

-HW2 Solution

DSM

Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1! Requirement definition

1 l

b 2! Engine specification 1 c 1 3! Vehicle layout 1 d 1 4! GFE interface 1 e 1 5! Fuselage design 1 1 1 f 1 6! Wing design 1 g 1 7! Avionics design 1 1 h 1 8! Empennage design 1 i 9! Engine delivery 1 j 10! Vehicle integration 1 1 1 k 11! GFE delivery 1 12! Ground testing 1 m 13! Flight testing 1 n

Artifact of sequencingDesign processFeedback additions


-10/7/03 8

+

-

© 2003

HW2 Solution (cont.) B C D E F G H I J K L M N

B C D E F G H I J K L M N

ESD.36J SPM Copyright James M. Lyneis

+

-HW2 Solution (cont.)

Airframe EquipmentDesign Installation

Items 1! Requirement definition

3! Vehicle layout

5! Fuselage design 8! Empennage design Unplanned 6! Wing design Iterations 4! GFE interface 7! Avionics design 2! Engine specification

9! Engine delivery 11! GFE delivery 10! Vehicle integration 12! Ground testing 13! Flight testing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 11 12 13 b

1 d 1

1 f 1 1 1 1 i 1

1 g 1

1 e 1 1 h 1

1 c 1

1 j 1 l

1 1 1 1 k 1 1 1 m

1 1 1 n

Integration and Test

Planned Iterations


+

-

Wrapup Discussion for Module 1(Methods and Tools)

Copyright © 200310/7/03 - ESD.36J SPM James M. Lyneis 10

+

-Critical Path Method/PERT

critical path

0 C,20 20 20 E,20 F,40

40 40 80 Finish

S=0 A,0 0

Start

G,20 80

H,0 100 100 F=100

0 B,10 10 20 D,30 50


+

-What is CPM useful for?


123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

+

-Design Structure Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Set customer target Estimate sales volumes Establish pricing directionSchedule project timelineDevelopment methodsMacro targets/constraintsFinancial analysisDevelop program mapCreate initial QFD matrixSet technical requirementsWrite customer specificationHigh-level modelingWrite target specificationDevelop test planDevelop validation planBuild base prototypeFunctional modelingDevelop product modules Lay out integrationIntegration modelingRandom testingDevelop test parametersFinalize schematicsValidation simulation Reliability modelingComplete product layoutContinuity verificationDesign rule checkDesign packageGenerate masksVerify masks in fabRun wafersSort wafersCreate test programsDebug productsPackage products Functionality testingSend samples to customersFeedback from customersVerify sample functionalityApprove packaged productsEnvironmental validation Complete product validationDevelop tech. publicationsDevelop service coursesDetermine marketing nameLicensing strategyCreate demonstrationConfirm quality goalsLife testingInfant mortality testingMfg. process stabilizationDevelop field support planThermal testingConfirm process standardsConfirm package standardsFinal certificationVolume productionPrepare distribution networkDeliver product to customers

10/7/03 - ESD.36J SPM 13

• x x • x • x x • x • x •

• x x • x

x x • •

x • x x • x x • x x x x x x • O O O O

x x x x • x x x x • x x

x x x x x • x x x x x •

x x • x x x • O O O O O O

x x x • O x x x • x x x x x x x • x

x x • x x x •

x x • x x O O O O O x x x x • x x

x • x x x • x x

x x • x x x •

x x x x x • O O O O x • x O x x x •

x • x O x •

x • x x x x x • O O O O

x x x • x x x •

x x x x • x •

x • x x •

x x x x • x x •

x x • x x x x • x

x • x x x x • x x x x •

x x x • x x x • x x x x x x • x

x x x • O O x x •

x x x • x • x x

x x x x x • x x •

x • x x x x •

x x x x •

x = Information Flows = Planned Iterations O = Unplanned Iterations • = Generational Learning

Concurrent Activity Blocks

Potential Iterations

Generational Learning

Sequential Activities

x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x xx x

O O O O

x x x x x x x x

x x x xx x x x x x x x x x O O O O

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x xx x x

x x x xx x x

x x x x

O O O x x x

O O O

x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x x x x x xx x

x x x x x x x x x x

+

-What is DSM useful for?


+

-System Dynamics

External factors; management responses; side effects

ity

ApparentProgress

Customer Changes Schedule

Acceleration

Work, Worksite Congestion,Coordination Problems,

Employee Skill

Fatigue,Burnout

Overtime

Hiring

ScopeGrowth

Undiscovered Rework

Known Rework

Work Really Done

Work To Be Done

Progress

Rework Discovery

People Productiv Quality

Out-of-Sequence

Morale Problems

Average

and Quality


+

-What is SD useful for?


+

-SPM Methods Overview

PERT DSM SD CPM

(+) strength

Detailed Planning Critical path identification

Captures iterations Meta-tasks Architecture-task mapping

Explores dynamic drivers Informs PM actions

(-) weakness

No iterations No connection to organization

Operational planning

individual task models impractical


Class Schedule

(refer to syllabus)

Module Business2

+

-

12/4 Presentations 212/2 Presentations 1

11/25 No Class

11/20 Success Factors

11/13 Concurrency11/11 Veterans Day

11/6 Project Adaptation11/4 Project Tracking

10/30 Risk Management10/28 Critical Path

10/23 Case 3: H/W&S/W10/21 Case 2: H/W

10/16 Case 1: S/W10/14 ICE Methods

10/9 PDPs10/7 Strategic Issues

10/2 Managing9/30 Project Simulation

9/25 Feedback & Rework

9/18 Project Organization9/16 Iterations DSM

9/11 Task-based DSM9/9 Network Techniques

11/27 Thanksgiving

11/18 Project Metrics

Dynamics

9/23 System Dynamics 1

Trip

Note two No Class 3-hour

classes in

December Copyright © 2003


+

-

System Project Management ESD.36 Framework

Project Preparation Project

Planning

Project Adaptation

Project Monitoring

Enterprise has chosen what product or system to develop

Ref: J. Warmkessel


+

- Topics





+

-Framework

Project Preparation

Project Planning

Project Execution

Project Adaptation

Doing the right job

Doing the job right


+

-

What is “strategy” as it applies to an individual project (vs. corporate

strategy as it applies to projects and the project portfolio)?


+

-Corporate Strategy for the Project

� Determining the fit of the project to businessobjectives (the “mission” – doing the right job) � features / scope of end product � schedule milestones (time to market) � delivered quality (defects) � resources & budget (development cost) And the mix/timing of “projects” necessary to achieve

corporate strategy

Operationally, “projects” implement corporate strategy.


+

-Mission Dimensions

Priority & Specific Objectives

High, Stretch Low, Slack

Features / Scope

Defects/ Undiscovered Rework

Resources / Cost

Time-to-Market/ Schedule

Medium

Copyright © 200310/7/03 - ESD.36J SPM James M. Lyneis

+

-Strategic Project Management

� Understanding how project “design” decisionsaffect project performance …� Scope/schedule/ ... (i.e., mission)� Organization, process, ...� Buffers, phase overlap, ...� Staffing strategies, schedule slip, ...� ...

� … and how they affect other current projects(portfolio issues), and future projects.

Operationally, “day-to-day projectdecisions” implement project strategy.


+

-Process & Organization Issues

� Waterfall vs. spiral vs. ... � Autonomous team vs. functional (&

therefore multiple projects per person?) � Integrated product teams? � System vs. modules (?) � How much to subcontract, make vs. buy


+

-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 (vs. not getting enough people, local content, …?)

� How much training � How much is it worth to reduce attrition?


+

- Strategic vs Operational Decisions

Operational Strategic


+

-

Strategic “Project” Management Pertains to Both Preparation & Planning

© 2003

Project Preparation

Project Planning

Project Execution

Project Adaptation

Doing the right job

Doing the job right

Strategic Project Management

Copyright 10/7/03 - ESD.36J SPM James M. Lyneis 29

+

- Topics





+

-Typical project dynamics ...

Project Staffing

Typical Plan

... Result in schedule &/or budget overrun

TimeCopyright © 2003


+

-Project dynamics from Homework 4:

Graph for Staff Level60

45

30

15

0

Plan

0 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 People Staff Level : Class4 Hire 0 People Staff Level : Class4 People


+


� What can we do to avoid/minimize the dynamics ...

� … in project preparation (design) and project planning?

� … in project execution and adaptation (e.g., risk management and change management)?


+

-

© 2003

Work Quality to Date

Scheduled Completion

Time

Expected Completion

Time Availability

of Prerequisites

Progress

Pressure

Out-of-Sequence Work

Morale

Hours at Completion

Hours Expended

to Date

Skill & Experience

Hiring

EquivalentStaff on Project

StaffingRequested

TurnoverOrganizational

Changes

Staff

Quality

Added Work

Work

Overtime

Time Remaining

Be Done

How do the dynamics get started?

Copyright Perceived

Schedule

Expected Progress

Rework Discovery

Size

Productivity

Obsoleted

Work To

Undiscovered Rework

Known Rework

Work Really Done


+

-How Does It Get Started?

� Inconsistent “mission” (scope/schedule/defects/budget)

� Late changes and other risks � “Quality” problems

These are characteristics of “complex” (vs. “simple”) projects


+

-

© 2003

Work Quality to Date

Scheduled Completion

Time

Expected Completion

Time Availability

of Prerequisites

Progress

Schedule Pressure

Out-of-SequenceWork

Morale

Hours at Completion

Hours Expended

to Date

Skill & Experience

Hiring

Equivalent Staff on Project

Staffing Requested

TurnoverOrganizational

Changes

Staff

Quality

Added Work

Work

Overtime

Time Remaining

Be Done

How does it get started?

Copyright Perceived

Expected Progress

Rework Discovery

Size

Productivity

Obsoleted

Work To

Undiscovered Rework

Known Rework

Work Really Done


+




These are characteristics of “complex” (vs. “simple”) projects


+

-Mission Dimensions

Priority & Specific Objectives

High, Stretch Low, Slack

Features / Scope

Defects/ Undiscovered Rework

Resources / Cost

Time-to-Market/ Schedule

Medium

What should the “objectives” be? How many can be “high” priority?

Copyright © 2003 10/7/03 - ESD.36J SPM James M. Lyneis

+

-Consistent Project Can Achieve the “Plan”

� Scope = 100 (tasks) � Scheduled Completion Date = 30

(month) (vs. 27 in Class4 model)� Delivered Quality > 99% � Staff = 4 (people) � Normal Quality = .95 (fraction) (vs. .85

in Class4 model)


+

-Staff & Progress

100 Task 6 People

75 Task 4.5 People

50 Task 3 People

25 Task 1.5 People

0 Task 0 People

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 Time (Month)

Work Done : Plan Task Staff Level : Plan People


+

-Productivity

1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60

Time (Month)

Productivity : Plan Task/(Month*Person) Effect of Experience on Productivity : Plan Task/(Month*Person) Effect of Schedule Pressure on Productivity : Plan Task/(Month*Person)


+

-Quality

1

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60

Time (Month)

Quality : Plan Fraction Effect of Prior Work Quality on Quality : Plan Fraction Effect of Experience on Quality : Plan Fraction Effect of Schedule Pressure on Quality : Plan Fraction


+

-

Inconsistent Projects Can Initiate the “Dynamics”

� Plan Work 125 [Scope = 125 initial tasks (vs 100)]

� Plan Schedule 22 [Scheduled completion date = 22.5 (vs 30)]

� Plan Staff 3 [Staff = 3 people until past 50% complete (vs 4); this might also reflect resource constraints as well as poor or aggressive planning].

� Plan Quality 85 [Normal Quality = .85 (vs .95)]


+

-Graph for Staff Level

20

15

10

5

0

Plan

0 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 People Staff Level : Plan Work 125 People Staff Level : Plan Schedule 22 People Staff Level : Plan Staff 3 People Staff Level : Plan Quality 85 People


+ What makes it worse? - Time

Remaining

Skill & Experience

Staff

Morale Organizational Turnover HiringSize

Changes Overtime

Schedule StaffingScheduledCompletion

Out-of-Sequence

Pressure Equivalent Requested

Productivity Quality Staff on Time Project

Work Hours Expended Progress Expected to Date ExpectedWork Completion Availability Work To

Be Done Really Done Hours at Time of Prerequisites Added Completion

Work Obsoleted Known Undiscovered WorkWork Quality

to Date Rework Rework Rework

Discovery

Perceived Progress Copyright © 2003


+

- Graph for Quality 1

0.75

0.5

0.25

0

Quality on Quality Feedback

What makes it worse?

Plan

0 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 Plan Fraction Quality : Class 5 Plan Scope 125 Fraction Quality : Class 5 Plan Schedule 22 Fraction Quality : Class 5 Plan Staff 3 Fraction Quality : Class 5 Plan Quality 85 Fraction


+

- Graph for Effect of Experience on Quality 1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

Experience on Quality Feedback

What makes it worse? Plan

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 Time (Month)

Effect of Experience on Quality : Class 5 Plan Dimensionless Effect of Experience on Quality : Class 5 Plan Scope 125 Dimensionless Effect of Experience on Quality : Class 5 Plan Schedule 22 Dimensionless Effect of Experience on Quality : Class 5 Plan Staff 3 Dimensionless Effect of Experience on Quality : Class 5 Plan Quality 85 Dimensionless


+

-

Trying to achieve inconsistent objectives can lead to disaster

Test Finish Cost(person-mos)Plan 29.875 116.7

Increase Scope 33.125 211.3 (vs. 145 to 125 budget) Reduce 27.6 194.7 Schedule to 22.5

Reduce Initial 34 193.0Staff to 3

35.8 213.5Normal Q = .85

With end result worse (schedule/cost) than if project budgeted higher at start


+

-

What is implicit lower priority in above simulations (and Homework 4 model)?

� Adding staff, and therefore cost.

� Based on homework, can this ever work?

� How often do you believe those conditions exist?


+




These are characteristics of “complex”(vs. “simple”) projects


+

-

Late Project Changes Can Create the Dynamics As Well

� “Changes” � 20% of tasks done obsoleted at month 15 � Put into undiscovered rework (what needs

to be redone often not completely known when “change” is made).


+

-Graph for Work Done

100

75

50

25

0 0 3 6 9

Work Done ...

“Changes”

12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 Time (Month)

Work Done : Class 5 Plan Task Work Done : Class 5 Changes Task


+

-Staffing ...

Graph for Staff Level20

15

10

5

0

“Changes”

0 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 Plan People Staff Level : Class 5 Changes People


Graph for Quality

+

-Quality ...

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

“Changes”

0 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 Plan Fraction Quality : Class 5 Changes Fraction


+


� Inconsistent “mission” (scope/schedule/budget)


These are characteristics of “complex”(vs. “simple”) projects


+

-

What causes project “quality” problems?

� Remember, quality as used in the model is any work done incorrectly or incompletely, regardless of cause


+

-

What causes project “quality” problems?

� Endogenous feedback effects (manageable) � Exogenous factors

� Availability and quality of information from others(suppliers, other projects, platforms)

� Uncertain customer requirements � Uncertain technology, technology leap � Scope (esp. number of features and resultant

complexity) � Other -- type of people available, tools,

organization structure


+

-

What are differences between “changes” and “quality” problems?

� Changes represent truly unknowable,uncontrollable, exogenous impacts(though the fact that they often happenmight be planned for) � competitor introduces a new feature � ...

� “Quality” problems can be anticipatedand dealt with in the design andmanagement of the project � buffers, prototypes, process, ...


+

-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


+

-

Strategic “Project” Management Pertains to Both Preparation & Planning

Project Preparation

Project Planning

Project Execution

Project Adaptation

Doing the right job

Doing the job right

Strategic Project Management


+


� Establishing project design“parameters” -� Consistent mission � Development process � Organization structure (?) � Staffing strategy � Phase overlap & concurrency � What to measure, monitor, and exert

pressure on� ...


+

-Strategic Project “Design”

� Given the mission objectives, what is theproject likely to cost and when will it finish(given prior experience)? What risks mightthe project face?

� How can we optimize the tradeoff amongscope/schedule/budget in meeting theproject’s mission? What will it really cost meto … finish earlier, add features, ….

� What changes in process, organization, …etc. might improve the tradeoff.


+

-

How many people feel that on the typical project in your organization, budget and schedule are …

� More than is needed __________

� Just right __________

� Tight, but manageable __________

� Insufficient enough that the vicious circles are significant __________


+

-Why Won’t We Develop a Realistic Plan?


+

-Lessons

� Getting a feasible project design is the first step to avoiding adverse project dynamics

� Prior projects are the best source of information with which to design a robust project

� There is an optimal tradeoff among scope, budget, schedule, and delivered defects


+

-

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


+


� Establishing project design “parameters” -� Consistent mission

� Development process

� Organization structure (?)� Staffing strategy

Strategic � Phase overlap & concurrency Project

Planning?� What to measure, monitor, and exert pressure on

� ... Copyright © 2003 10/7/03 - ESD.36J SPM James M. Lyneis 67

+

- Selected Issues in Project Planning

� Selecting the process model � Defining teams and responsibilities � Activity planning and resource allocation � Scheduling � Determining what to measure, monitor,

exert pressure on (reward) � Identifying risks and mitigation plans


+

-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? Copyright © 2003


+

-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 out project?


+

-

How do we assess what is right for our project?

System Dynamics Approach:� Model the project with current processes, policies, … � Specify the direct impacts of alternatives (steady

state vs. dynamic) on -� Scope � productivity � quality � rework discovery � strength of productivity and quality effects� ...[Secondary impacts assessed via simulation]

� Simulate and compare performance


+

-

Autonomous Integrated Teams vs. Functional: Autonomous Teams ...

Pros Cons


+

-

Autonomous Integrated Teams vs. Functional: Sample Test

� Integrated Teams: � Improve normal quality to 0.925 (from 0.85

because diverse members of team capture mistakes before they happen)

� Reduce Maximum rework discovery time to 4 months (from 12 months)

� Reduce Normal productivity to .9 (from 1 because multiple team member slow progress, more review, discussion, …)


+

-Graph for Staff Level

20

15

10

5

0

Plan

Functional

Product Team Integrated

0 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 People Staff Level : Class6 Waterfall People Staff Level : Class6 Integrated Teams People


+

-

Graph for Quality 1

0.75

0.5

0.25

0

Plan

Functional


0 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 Fraction Quality : Class6 Waterfall Fraction Quality : Class6 Integrated Teams Fraction


+

-

Graph for Undiscovered Rework 40

30

20

10

0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60

Plan

Functional


Time (Month)

Undiscovered Rework : Class6 Plan Task Undiscovered Rework : Class6 Waterfall Task Undiscovered Rework : Class6 Integrated Teams Task


+

-

Autonomous Integrated Teams vs. Functional

TestPlan

Functional

Integrated Product Team

Finish Cost(person-mos) 29.875 116.7

38.875 263.3

31.625 189.38


+

- Conclusions re. Integrated Teams

� An integrated product team or similar organization structure can improve performance if project conditions would otherwise cause significant undiscovered rework

� The benefits of these structures increase with the uncertainty (risk), and likely project overrun with traditional development approaches

� Cautions ... Copyright © 2003


+


� Establishing project design “parameters” -� Consistent mission � Development process � Organization structure (?) � Staffing strategy � Phase overlap & concurrency � What to measure, monitor, and exert pressure on � ...

Next SD class we’ll deal with the other design issues


esd.36j system & project management - … path method/pert critical path 0 c,20 20 20 e,20 f,40...

Documents