meet or exceed schedule expectations through intelligent acceleration
DESCRIPTION
Delivered at PMI SCoP's 9th Annual Scheduling Conference, this presentation is an introduction of a new approach which enables a project to undergo iterative "what if" scenarios until a balance between successful acceleration and achievability.TRANSCRIPT
//
// Meet or Exceed Schedule Expectations through Intelligent Acceleration
Dr. Dan Patterson PMP// CEO Acumen
May 7 2012
//
// Acumen
◦ Project Management Software
◦ Oracle Primavera partner
◦ Insight into challenges & use of analytics to overcome them
◦ Core Concepts: 1. Project success requires a sound plan
2. Forecast accuracy requires risk consideration
Proven Project Analytics
Product Offerings
Risk Workshops
Acumen Fuse®
Software Training
Realistic Scheduling
Critiqued
The Base
Risk-Adjusted
Optimized
Team-Aligned // S5
// S4
// S3
// S2
// S1
May 10, 2012 2
//
// Schedule Maturity Framework Acumen S1//S5
S1 • Schedule Basis • Owner/contractor schedule
S2 • Cri/qued Schedule • Ensure structural integrity
S3 • Risk-‐Adjusted Schedule • Account for risk/uncertainty
S4 • Op/mized Target Scenarios • Schedule accelera>on
S5 • Team Validated Scenario • Buy-‐in on op>miza>on 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Chan
ce of S
ucess
Maturity Level
Measure quality through the Fuse Schedule Index™
May 10, 2012 3
//
// Schedule Quality Measurement
◦ 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
Metric Analysis
//
// Acumen Schedule Metrics
Logic Density™ • Measure of complexity/completeness
Logic Hotspot™ • Timely start?
Float Ra>o™ • Degree of flexibility per day of work
Redundancy Index™ • Non-‐needed logic
Advanced Project Insight
Finish Compliance™ • Accurate measure of performance
Insufficient Detail™ • Ac>vity V project dura>on
Milestone Ra>o™ • Detail V repor>ng
Broad Risk Range • Check for erroneous risk input
//
// Schedule Index™ Measure of Quality
May 10, 2012 6
//
// Measuring Project Performance
◦ 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
Baseline Compliance™
May 10, 2012
//
// Baseline Compliance Index™
Examines how many ac>vi>es fell within the expected
repor>ng period
//
// Developing Baseline Compliance Index
//
// Finish Compliance Index™
0% 20% 40%
60%
80%
100%
May 10, 2012
//
//
//
// Quality Planning Truly Drives Success
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pro
babilit
y of
On-T
ime C
om
ple
tion
Fuse Schedule Index™
May 10, 2012 12
//
// Acumen Fuse® Software Demonstration Case Study
//
// Case Study
• 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
Owner/contractor Alignment
//
// Case Study
◦ GasCom ◦ LNG Pipeline & Facility Owner ◦ Early FEED stage
◦ Project Details ◦ Readying for sanction approval ◦ Expected First Gas Date: Dec.
2013 ◦ Gas sales contract already
established ◦ Using Primavera P6
Schedule Acceleration/Risk Reduction
15
Realistic Scheduling
Critiqued
The Base
Risk-Adjusted
Optimized
Team-Aligned // S5
// S4
// S3
// S2
// S1
May 10, 2012
//
// S1 > S2
◦ Sanction Board Requirements ◦ Risk-adjusted forecast P75
◦ Fuse Schedule Index 75+
◦ Project Status ◦ S1 showing Dec 13 first gas
◦ Risk assessment not yet conducted
Schedule Review
Realistic Scheduling
Critiqued
The Base
Risk-Adjusted
Optimized
Team-Aligned // S5
// S4
// S3
// S2
// S1
16 May 10, 2012
//
// S1 > S2 Schedule Critique
◦ 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
Sound Basis of Schedule
May 10, 2012 17
//
// GasCom Logic Density™
◦ Determine Logic Hotspots™ in schedule
◦ Level of detail was lacking towards the end of the project – mainly around interfaces & integration
Planning Consistency
May 10, 2012
More defini>on needed
18
//
// Removal of Logic Redundancy Simplification of Schedule
8% redundancy
Removal of redundancy led to a cleaner, more robust schedule
//
// S1 > S2
◦ S2 First Gas date: May 2014
◦ Schedule Critique Details: ◦ Missing Logic was added ◦ Lags converted to activities ◦ Float analysis
◦ Showed padding of early activities
Summary
Realistic Scheduling
Critiqued
The Base
Risk-Adjusted
Optimized
Team-Aligned // S5
// S4
// S3
// S2
// S1
5 months S2: May 2014 S1: Dec 2013
May 10, 2012 20
//
// Float Analysis
◦ S1 showed high float in early stage of project ◦ S2 resolved schedule showed the opposite ◦ Early acceleration opportunity went away
GasCom
0
20
40
60
Q1 2011
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014 S1 Average Float S2 Average Float
Originally perceived opportunity for making up lost time through float absorption in early stage of
project
Resolved schedule not offering early stage
schedule acceleration
May 10, 2012 21
//
// S2 > S3
◦ Objective: ◦ Determine a P75 First Gas date
◦ Conducted Risk Workshop
Risk Analysis
Realistic Scheduling
Critiqued
The Base
Risk-Adjusted
Optimized
Team-Aligned // S5
// S4
// S3
// S2
// S1
Uncertainty
Risk Events
Schedule
May 10, 2012 22
//
// GasCom Perception of Risk Exposure Risk Inputs & Outputs
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Team Percep>on
Actual Risk Hotspots
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%
May 10, 2012 23
//
//
May 10, 2012 24
//
//
◦ P75 risk-adjusted First Gas: Oct 2014 ◦ 10 months later than board
expectations
◦ Identified key risk hot spots ◦ Long Lead procurement items
◦ Hidden path identified ◦ Driven by land acquisition delaying
pipeline early works
S2 > S3 Summary
Realistic Scheduling
Critiqued
The Base
Risk-Adjusted
Optimized
Team-Aligned // S5
// S4
// S3
// S2
// S1
S1: Dec 2013
S2: May 2014
5 S3: Oct 2014 10
May 10, 2012 25
//
//
◦ Risk Mitigation: ◦ Response plan identified for key
risks ◦ Response plans added to
schedule ◦ Assessed cost/benefit of
mitigation ◦ $100MM investment to save 1
month
S3 > S4 Getting back to Dec 2013
Realistic Scheduling
Critiqued
The Base
Risk-Adjusted
Optimized
Team-Aligned // S5
// S4
// S3
// S2
// S1
May 10, 2012 26
//
//
◦ Schedule Acceleration details: ◦ LNG Pipeline ready for hookup: Feb
13 ◦ LNG Facility ready to receive gas: Nov
13
◦ Focus needed: ◦ Accelerating the LNG facility
◦ Could afford to slow down pipeline/field work by months…
S3 > S4 Getting back to Dec 2013
Realistic Scheduling
Critiqued
The Base
Risk-Adjusted
Optimized
Team-Aligned // S5
// S4
// S3
// S2
// S1
May 10, 2012 27
//
// LNG Facility
◦ Criteria set drives acceleration ◦ Reduce duration
◦ More resources
◦ Changed calendars ◦ Contractor incentive
◦ Delay Train 2
Acceleration Criteria Set
LNG Facility
Script Objec/ve “accelerate Facility by 6
months”
Step 1 Accelerate Jefy construc>on
Step 2 Delay Train 2 ac>vi>es
Step 3 Introduce 6 day working week/larger camp
May 10, 2012 28
//
// How did this work?
◦ CPM simulation
◦ Critical path focus
◦ Incremental push
◦ Prioritize ◦ Earliest/latest
◦ Longest durations
◦ Least resistance
Fuse 360 Acceleration
May 10, 2012 29
//
//
◦ LNG Facility: ◦ Accelerated sufficiently ◦ No longer the driving path
◦ S4 Deterministic First Gas: Aug 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
S3 > S4 > S5 Summary
Realistic Scheduling
Critiqued
The Base
Risk-Adjusted
Optimized
Team-Aligned // S5
// S4
// S3
// S2
// S1
May 10, 2012 30
//
// GasCom Case Study
◦ Fully vetted, bought-into schedule ◦ Risk-adjusted ◦ LNG Facility accelerated to align with
pipeline ◦ Mitigation plan sponsored by board ◦ Sanction awarded!
The Result
S4: Accelerated Aug 1 2013
S1: Target 1st Gas
Dec 1 2013
S2: Resolved Schedule May 1 2014
S3: Risk-Adjusted Oct 1 2014
P75 S4: Feb 2014
S5: Mitigated Dec 1 2013
//
// How did this work?
◦ CPM simulation
◦ Critical path focus
◦ Incremental push
◦ Prioritize
◦ Earliest/latest
◦ Longest durations
◦ Least resistance
Fuse 360 Acceleration
//
// Acceleration Efficiency™
◦ 2 day project acceleration
◦ Requires 2 days of reduction
◦ Acceleration Efficiency =2/2 100%
◦ 2 day project acceleration
◦ Requires 2 days of reduction
◦ Acceleration Efficiency=2/3 67%
Example 2
2 day project acceleration
2 day project acceleration
2 day activity reduction 2 day activity
reduction
1 day activity reduction 3
Measure of Acceleration Effort
Example 1
//
// Q&A
//
//
More information: White papers: www.projectacumen.com Software Trial: www.projectacumen.com/trial Twitter: @projectacumen Email: [email protected]