project cost, schedule, risk and contingency
DESCRIPTION
Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency. Jay Elias. References: KOSMOS Management document KOSMOS Project Plan & Budget Narrative KOSMOS Risks document KOSMOS WBS KOSMOS Schedule. Outline. Review current budget status Discuss construction budget, schedule and related items. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
August 2 and 3, 2010
Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency
Jay Elias
![Page 2: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
• References:– KOSMOS Management document– KOSMOS Project Plan & Budget Narrative– KOSMOS Risks document– KOSMOS WBS– KOSMOS Schedule
![Page 3: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Outline
• Review current budget status• Discuss construction budget, schedule
and related items
![Page 4: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Current Status
• OSU design contract started Dec. 1, 2009
• NOAO had 3 main budget components– Initial preparatory phase (Aug until Dec. 1,
2009)– Design phase science activities (non-
ReSTAR)– Design phase ReSTAR effort
![Page 5: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Current Status
• OSU will have largely spent funds by end of this month (Aug), as planned ($241K)– Final invoice after completion of design
review
![Page 6: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Current Status
• NOAO expenditures recorded through June 30:– Initial preparatory phase spent $40K– Design phase science activities spent $4K
out of $31K budget – Design phase ReSTAR effort spent $46K of
$145K budget– Expenditures in July/Aug will be substantial
(but not $100K)
![Page 7: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Current Status
• Why did NOAO over-estimate expenditures?– Science effort low because project scientist
position became vacant, individuals “helping out” generally did not charge
– Over-estimated required commitment for project management generally
– Guess is that final expenditures will be somewhat over 50% of budget• This experience is folded into estimates that follow
![Page 8: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
KOSMOS Construction Budget & Schedule
• Process:– OSU built up a master plan based on remaining
design effort and experience with OSMOS I&T– NOAO did a more detailed estimate (given lack
of experience with OSMOS) and verified schedule was consistent with OSU plan
– Both effectively a bottom-up estimate starting at level 2 or 3 of WBS• Won’t discuss details unless requested, see
references
![Page 9: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
KOSMOS Construction Budget & Schedule
• Process:– OSU contingency estimated for major
procurement categories and for manpower at relevant parts of schedule (hence, both budget and schedule contingency)
– NOAO used “risk factor” approach (cf. ALMA, TMT, etc.) at the task level, roll up into pool. Associated schedule contingency consistent with OSU plan
![Page 10: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Budget Summary
Institution OSU NOAO (ReStar)
NOAO (Base)
BaselinePayroll $208,966 $591,167 $51,445Non-Payroll $281,307 $234,094 $2,520Baseline F&A $124,932ContingencyContingency $73,100 $129,611 $7,144Contingency F&A
$9,584
Sub-Total$697,889
$954,872 $61,109Total $1,015,980Cont./Baseline 13.4% 15.6%
![Page 11: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Contingency
• Rolled up at the institutional level– Easier to manage than if done at project
level– Overall just under 15% of baseline costs –
plausible given nature of project– We expect to spend it – properly
estimated, that’s what it’s for
![Page 12: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Budget Summary by WBS
• Some remarks:– Because of granular budgeting at OSU
(and standard university policies for faculty salaries), OSU costs concentrated in a few elements
– Some WBS elements are more separate than others – e.g., 6 & 10 linked
![Page 13: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Budget Summary by WBSWBS OSU NOAO Total1: Project Management $53,162 $118,125 $171,287
2: Science Team Activities $43,079 $53,965 $97,044
3: Systems Engineering $0 $57,972. $57,972
4: Optics $271,559 $1,646 $273,2055: Spectrograph Mechanical $104,363 $95,888 $200,251
6: Spectrograph Controls and Telemetry
$61,604 $0 $61,604
7: Facility Modifications $0 $6,173 $6,173
8: Detector System $0 $259,030 $259,0309: Top-Level Software $0 $127,425 $127,425
10: Integration and Test $75,340 $90,965 $166,305
11: Shipping $6,100 $0 $6,10012: Documentation and Training
$0 $39,838 $39,838
13: Slit Mask Fabrication $0 $18,200 $18,200
Contingency $82,685 $146,755 $220,300Total $697,889 $1,015,980 $1,713,869
Table 5.2 –Project Cost by WBS Element
![Page 14: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Total Cost
• Including construction phase budget and anticipated expenditures for design phase, total instrument cost will be just under $2.1M
![Page 15: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Schedule
• Detailed schedule available on-line (on-wall)– Most major tasks flow independently into
I&T phase– Mechanical design and fab is the main
exception– Interaction between spectrograph control
software and top-level software
![Page 16: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Schedule
• Schedule looked at NOAO labor loading– Mechanical fabrication and software efforts
near 100% but not over for a few months• Need to coordinate with ODI
– Other tasks under 100% loading for people involved
• OSU schedule is built up using available staff at 100% when needed
![Page 17: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Mechanical Design & Fab
• Example of flow of work for enclosure– Instrument electronics box drawings available early
and needed early; fabrication occurs Sept/Oct– Main enclosure drawings need redesign but
enclosure not needed until end of March ‘11 (misc parts needed later); design and fab phased accordingly
![Page 18: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Flow of I&T through Acceptance
Note arrival of enclosure end of March, optics end of May
![Page 19: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Significant RisksRisk ID Risk Name Probability Severity Summary Description Mitigations and Reductions
3.1 ICD Status Moderate Moderate ICDs not complete at design review
ICDs almost entirely between sub-systems with existing designs; critical software ICDs most nearly complete
4.1 Optics Performance-1
Moderate Moderate Melt variance will affect UV performance
Measurement of melt indices; re-optimization of design
4.2 Optics Performance-2
Moderate Moderate Coating performance may reduce throughput
Iteration with vendors; production of test or witness samples
4.3 Optics Cost/Schedule
High Low Camera design more complex than OSMOS
Only 1 asphere; aspheres moderate
4.4 ADC vignetting
High Low Mayall ADC undersized Work near zenith or at parallactic angle for full MOS field
5.1 Instrument Flexure
High Low Instrument flexure complicates night-time calibration
Purchase stiffer focus stages; undo some OSMOS light-weighting to produce stiffer overall structure; examine
7.1 Calibration Field
High Low Rotator/Guider Calibration field undersized
Day-time use of "white spot", night sky lines; flexure reduction
9.1 Software complexity
Moderate Moderate Software interactions among multiple sub-systems from both NOAO & OSU
Ensure critical ICDs fully developed; nearly all software exists already
13.1 MOS mask production
Low High MOS mask software provided by 3rd parties
Not on critical path for commissioning; assessment point in Jan.
![Page 20: Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062422/56813545550346895d9ca590/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Lesser Risks
Project managementCost and scheduleMissing official NOAO project scientistPerformance modelingDetector and controller systemsIntegration and testDocumentation and training