ISE515 Engineering Project Management

Gayatri Vilas NilangekarChangda Ren

Yanli TangHuijian Tian

Xue Yang

Siege Engine Project - TrebuchetCDR-Team 3

CDR Outline

Requirementssummary

SOW,WBS,Schedule,Cost,CV,SV

EngineeringDesignLayout

RiskManagement

Performance&TestResults

LessonsLearned

Requirements Summary1. Build a model siege engine to enter the new weapons competition for William’s expedition.

2. The Siege Engine must demonstrate the ability to meet accuracy and repeatability performance goals.

3. The Siege Engine must propel a 7 gram projectile a distance of 15 feet over a 5 foot barrier located 7 feet from the model Siege Engine.

4. The Siege Engine can hit the target in successive 5 attempts.

5. Duration: from January 27, 2015 to April 30, 2015. (PDR review: February 3; CDR review: April 28;Test: April 30.)

6. Cost: for labor cost: $100 ISE/hour/person (overtime: $150 ISE/hour/person ), for purchased parts, $1 = $1000 ISE

Statement of work

• Build a model Siege Engine that meet all the requirements before April 30th . The performance is the most important element of the triple constraint.

WBS

TaskName Task# Duration(Days) TaskStarts TaskEnds Predecessors ResourceName ResourceRate($ISE)MaterialsRate

($ISE)Design 1 6 2015/1/28 2015/2/6

Conceptfinalising 1.1 1 2015/1/28 2015/1/28 Allfiveteammembers 1,000Initialsketchandanalysis 1.2 2 2015/1/29 2015/1/30 1.1 Gayatri,Huijian 800Createapartslist 1.3 1 2015/1/29 2015/1/29 1.2 Yanli 200Finalisingthematerial 1.4 1 2015/1/30 2015/1/30 1.3 Yanli 200

AutoCADdrawing(detailedanalysiswithtolerances) 1.5 2 2015/2/4 2015/2/5 1.4 Huijian 400Designvalidation 1.6 1 2015/2/6 2015/2/6 1.5 Huijian 200

Costestimateanddatacompilation 2 2 2015/1/30 2015/2/2 1.1 Xue 400Fabricate 3 21 2015/2/9 2015/3/26

Identifyingthetoolrequirement 3.1 1 2015/2/9 2015/2/9 1 Yanli 200Procurement 3.2 3 2015/2/10 2015/2/12

Materialsandtoolsbuying 3.2.1 2 2015/2/10 2015/2/11 3.1 Yanli,Changda 800 70,000Qualitycheckofmaterials 3.2.2 1 2015/2/12 2015/2/12 3.2.1 Changda 200

Assembly 3.3 17 2015/3/24 2015/4/15Fabricationofchildparts 3.3.1 4 2015/3/24 2015/3/27 3.2 Allfiveteammembers 4,000

Subassemblyofframe 3.3.2 3 2015/3/30 2015/4/1 3.3.1 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 1,800QualityCheck 3.3.3 1 2015/4/2 2015/4/2 3.3.2 Xue 200

Subassemblyoflongarm 3.3.4 1 2015/4/3 2015/4/3 3.3.3 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 600Qualitycheck 3.3.5 1 2015/4/6 2015/4/6 3.3.4 Xue 200

Subassemblyofshortarm 3.3.6 2 2015/4/7 2015/4/8 3.3.5 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 1,200Qualitycheck 3.3.7 1 2015/4/9 2015/4/9 3.3.6 Changda 200FinalAssembly 3.3.8 4 2015/4/10 2015/4/15 3.3.7 Gayatri,Yanli,Huijian 2,400

Inspectionandtest 4 6 2015/4/16 2015/4/23Inspection 4.1 1 2015/4/16 2015/4/16 3.3 Yanli 200Performancetest 4.2 3 2015/4/17 2015/4/21 4.1 Allfiveteammembers 3,000Modification(ifrequired) 4.3 2 2015/4/22 2015/4/23 4.2 Huijian 400

Operatingmanual 4.4 2 2015/4/22 2015/4/23 4.2 Gayatri,Changda,Xue,Yanli 1,600

Weeklymeetings 5 13 Timedependsonscheduleofteammembers Allfiveteammembers 13,000

Task Durations & List of Resources

• Laborhours/person/day =2

Schedule Baseline Plan – Gantt Chart

• G:Gayatri;H:Huijian;Y:Yanli;C:Changda;X:Xue• All:Gayatri,Huijian,Yanli,Changda,Xue

Gantt Chart-Actual

• G:Gayatri;H:Huijian;Y:Yanli;C:Changda;X:Xue• All:Gayatri,Huijian,Yanli,Changda,Xue

TaskName Task# Duration(Days) TaskStarts TaskEnds Predecessors ResourceName ResourceRate($ISE)MaterialsRate

($ISE)Design 1 6 2015/1/28 2015/2/6

Conceptfinalising 1.1 1 2015/1/28 2015/1/28 Allfiveteammembers 1,000Initialsketchandanalysis 1.2 2 2015/1/29 2015/1/30 1.1 Gayatri,Huijian 800Createapartslist 1.3 1 2015/1/29 2015/1/29 1.2 Yanli 200Finalisingthematerial 1.4 1 2015/1/30 2015/1/30 1.3 Yanli 200

AutoCADdrawing(detailedanalysiswithtolerances) 1.5 2 2015/2/4 2015/2/5 1.4 Huijian 400Designvalidation 1.6 1 2015/2/6 2015/2/6 1.5 Huijian 200

Costestimateanddatacompilation 2 2 2015/1/30 2015/2/2 1.1 Xue 400Fabricate 3 21 2015/2/9 2015/3/26

Identifyingthetoolrequirement 3.1 1 2015/2/9 2015/2/9 1 Yanli 200Procurement 3.2 3 2015/2/10 2015/2/12

Materialsandtoolsbuying 3.2.1 2 2015/2/10 2015/2/11 3.1 Yanli,Changda 800 70,000Qualitycheckofmaterials 3.2.2 1 2015/2/12 2015/2/12 3.2.1 Changda 200

Assembly 3.3 17 2015/3/24 2015/4/15Fabricationofchildparts 3.3.1 4 2015/3/24 2015/3/27 3.2 Allfiveteammembers 4,000

Subassemblyofframe 3.3.2 3 2015/3/30 2015/4/1 3.3.1 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 1,800QualityCheck 3.3.3 1 2015/4/2 2015/4/2 3.3.2 Xue 200

Subassemblyoflongarm 3.3.4 1 2015/4/3 2015/4/3 3.3.3 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 600Qualitycheck 3.3.5 1 2015/4/6 2015/4/6 3.3.4 Xue 200

Subassemblyofshortarm 3.3.6 2 2015/4/7 2015/4/8 3.3.5 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 1,200Qualitycheck 3.3.7 1 2015/4/9 2015/4/9 3.3.6 Changda 200FinalAssembly 3.3.8 4 2015/4/10 2015/4/15 3.3.7 Gayatri,Yanli,Huijian 2,400

Inspectionandtest 4 6 2015/4/16 2015/4/23Inspection 4.1 1 2015/4/16 2015/4/16 3.3 Yanli 200Performancetest 4.2 3 2015/4/17 2015/4/21 4.1 Allfiveteammembers 3,000Modification(ifrequired) 4.3 2 2015/4/22 2015/4/23 4.2 Huijian 400

Operatingmanual 4.4 2 2015/4/22 2015/4/23 4.2 Gayatri,Changda,Xue,Yanli 1,600

Weeklymeetings 5 13 Timedependsonscheduleofteammembers Allfiveteammembers 13,000

Cost Baseline

• Laborhours/person/day =2

Cost Baseline

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Cost Baseline Graph

Dailytotalcost($ISE/100)

Cumtotalcost($ISE/100)

Weekending Weeklytimespent Totalhrs.Labor Expenses

($ISE)Weeklycost

($ISE) Cum.cost($ISE)

($ISE)

Gayatri Changda Yanli Huijian Xue

30-Jan 8 4 8 8 6 34 3,400 0 3,400 3,400

6-Feb 2 2 2 8 4 18 1,800 70,000 71,800 75,200

13-Feb 2 8 8 2 2 22 2,200 0 2,200 77,400

20-Feb 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 78,400

27-Feb 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 79,400

6-Mar 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 80,400

13-Mar 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 81,400

20-Mar 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 82,400

27-Mar 10 10 10 10 10 50 5,000 0 5,000 87,400

3-Apr 10 10 2 2 12 36 3,600 0 3,600 91,000

10-Apr 8 8 4 4 8 32 3,200 0 3,200 94,200

17-Apr 10 4 12 10 4 40 4,000 0 4,000 98,200

24-Apr 10 10 10 10 10 50 5,000 0 5,000 103,200

Weekly Cost Baseline

Week ending

Weekly time spent Total hrs. Labor ($ ISE)

Expenses ($)

Expenses ($ISE)

Weekly cost

($ISE)

Cum. cost

($ISE)

Cum. budget ($ISE)

Variance

Gayatri Changda Yanli Huijian Xue

Jan 30 6 2 6 6 4 24 2400 0 0 2400 2400 3400 1000

Feb 6 2 2 2 8 4 18 1800 0 0 1800 4200 75200 71000

Feb 13 2 2 2 4 2 12 1200 0 0 1200 5400 77400 72000

Feb 20 4 4 5 2 4 19 1900 25.78 25780 27680 33080 78400 45320

Feb 27 2 2 2 2 2 10 1000 0 0 1000 34080 79400 45320

Mar 6 2 2 2 2 2 10 1000 0 0 1000 35080 80400 45320

Mar 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35080 81400 46320

Mar 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35080 82400 47320

Mar 27 4 4 4 4 4 20 2000 0 0 2000 37080 87400 50320

April 3 7 7 7 7 7 35 4250 6.28 6280 10530 47610 91000 43390

April 10 5 5 5 5 5 25 3250 0 0 3250 50860 94200 43340

April 17 5 5 5 5 5 5 3250 0 0 3250 54110 98200 44090

April 24 9 8 8 8 9 42 5200 0 0 5200 59310 103200 43890

Cost – Actual Cost

Cost – Actual Cost

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000Cum.cost

Cum.budget

Variance

Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Week7 Week8 Week9 Week10 Week11 Week12 Week13Day 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 64

PlanValue($ISE) 2400 3200 74400 74400 74400 74400 74400 74400 78400 81000 83200 86200 90200ActualCost($ISE) 2400 3200 3400 30880 30880 30880 30880 30880 32880 36050 38300 40050 45250

EarnedValue($ISE) 2200 3200 3400 30880 30880 30880 30880 30880 32880 36050 37550 37550 45250CV=EV- AC($ISE) -200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -750 -2500 0

SV=EV- PV($ISE) -200 0 -71000 -43520 -43520 -43520 -43520 -43520 -45520 -44950 -45650 -48650 -44950

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

01 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63

CostVariance

SV and CV - Performance (0-100 Rule)

-80000

-70000

-60000

-50000

-40000

-30000

-20000

-10000

01 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63

ScheduleVariance

SV and CV – Analysis• Week 1: CV and SV are negative because we didn’t count the weekly meeting cost($ISE200)• Week 2 – Week 10:

CV are zero, because we finished the tasks of second week. But during week 3- Week 8, due to our midterm and spring break, we didn’t work at that period. At Week 9, we requested for change of schedule baseline and cost baseline, afterwards, we followed on the schedule of week 9 and week 10.

SV: There is a big variance in week 3, it is because we didn’t buy material as the schedule required. During week 4 – week 8, there are a constant variance ($ISE43520) because we bought the material at a much lower price than we estimated, the differenceis $ISE43520 . At week 9, the variance becomes bigger, it just because we finished task 3.3.1 with $ISE2000 instead of $ISE4000.Week 10, because we used less time to finish the tasks than we planned.• Week 11 – Week 12:

CV - There are two negative variance because we started the tasks of 4.3 and 4.4 ahead of schedule, and finished them on time. Therefore the time span is longer than our schedule baseline which results the big variance.

SV – During these two weeks, the variances become larger. This is also we started the tasks of 4.3 and 4.4 ahead of schedule, and finished them on time. Therefore the time span is longer than our schedule baseline which results the big variance.• Week 13:

CV is zero. SV is negative because we save a lot of cost than we estimated on the materials buying.

In a word, from SV and CV graphs, our CV and SV are always non-positive. This is because we fall behind the schedule. For the SV, there is another reason that results in the negative SV, which is our overestimation of our material costs.

Risk Management – the PlanTask RiskEvent#and

DescriptionProb.%(A)

Impact$ISE(B)

RiskEventStatus(Ax B)

Action Owner

Preventive(MainPlan)

TriggerPoint Contingent(PlanB)

ConceptFinalizing&InitialSketch

1 Designdoesnot meetrequirementofclient

40% 1,800 720 UseMatlab tosimulatethethrowingprocessandcalculatetheoptimalparameters

Lackofexperienceinmechanical analysisandengineeringdesign

Re-design Gayatri,Huijian

CostEstimate 2 Costisunderestimated

60% 200 120 Sum upcoststaskbytaskbasedonWBS

Lackof practicalexperience

Change thecostbaseline andrequestapprovalfromclient

Xue

ToolRequirementIdentification

3 Incompleteidentification oftools

20% 400 80 Identifythetoolsasthedesigners’specification

Lackofcommunicationbetween design andmanufacturingteam

Identifythemissing toolsandbuythem

Yanli

MaterialsandTools Buying

4 Materialisweakoroflowquality

20% 5,000 1,000 Researchandcomparisonofdifferentmaterialresources

Lackofknowledge toidentify thequality

Buynewmaterialswithgoodquality

Yanli,Changda

Assembly 5 Child partsorsubassemblies notmatchdesignspecifications

40% 5,300 2,120 Measureandcutasthedesign’sspecification

Errorsinmeasuring orcutting

Fabricatenewpartsorchangedesign

Allfivemembers

Risk Management – the Steps Taken

• Design: we use Matlab to validate design and decide the tolerance on critical part

• Tools: we looked for additional resources for tools instead of depending on only one resource

• Materials: search for suppliers (bookstore, Home Depot) and finalizing the suppliers based on quality and cost; bought extra materials in case of manufacturing damage

• Assembly: Extra time allocated to assembly; thorough discussion for any change in design, and changes in design are for ease of assembly, no change in critical parts

• Schedule: we work extra time; we crash the project; we develop agenda before meeting and follow up the decided activities

• Monitor and control: we apply project management tools such as inch-stone, EVA to control the triple constraints of the project

Design Layout (Preliminary Design )

Final Design

Design – Prototype

Trial Distancetotarget(inch)

1 1.42 03 04 2.15 1.96 0.77 08 1.29 2.710 0

Mean 1.0

Variance 1.022

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Distance/inch

Trial

Evidence That the Trebuchet Meets Requirements

• We recorded a video which will show the performance.

Video Evidence

Performance - Design EvolutionParametersLength 1.5mHeight 1mWeight 2KgProjectile 7gAngle -30°; 45°

Lessons LearnedProject Management aspect

• Team is the core of entire project. We take fully advantage of every team member’s strongpoint and distribute work package accordingly.(eg, one person is dedicated to monitor project activities is very effective)

• We abide by the control requirements of triple constraint and it is useful.(eg, time - on time, ahead of schedule 10 days; cost – within budget, save 46%; performance – acceptable)

• Project schedule is the critical tool for project success. We should spend more time to build and track schedule so that better control the progress.

• Developing risk response plan early is important.

• Since the duration of this project is quite long, it is very necessary to develop and maintain the team morale and harmony.

• It is quite important to distribute the work equally.

• Make sure all team members are bought in and keep everyone updated.

Lessons Learned

Technical Aspect

• We should explore more and make better use of MS project software to control and monitor the entire project.

• Consider the DFMEA (Design for Manufacturing and Assembly) points in initial design.

• Preparation of prototype to identify tools and manufacturing issues.

• Use cost estimation methods(eg, WBS elements, up-down) in order to predict the cost of the project more realistically.

Project Management aspect _ Continue

• In order to make the weekly meeting more efficient, we should spend more time for the preparation of the agenda and while meeting we should clear with the agenda and follow up of the responsibilities decided.

• Involvement and agreement of each team member in each critical decision of the project.

TEAM

03