AACE Internationals 53 rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington TCM: Improving Decision Making in a...
23
AACE International’s 53 rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington TCM: Improving Decision Making in a Green World Introduction To Critical Chain Project Management Hilbert Robinson, Afinitus Group, LLC Robert Richards Ph.D,, Stottler Henke Associates, Inc.
-
Upload
meredith-sword -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of AACE Internationals 53 rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington TCM: Improving Decision Making in a...
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
TCM: Improving Decision Making in a Green World
Introduction To Critical Chain Project Management
Hilbert Robinson, Afinitus Group, LLC Robert Richards Ph.D,, Stottler Henke Associates, Inc.
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
2
Are You A Responsible Person?
Scenario:• You live in New England and It’s late Winter• Time to airport varies from 45 minutes to 3 hours depending…• Most times it takes a little over 65 minutes• You are Joining the President at 9:00 AM
Question:
• How early should you leave? __________• Why?_____________________________
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Presentation Outline
1. Background– Triple Constraints– Murphy’s Law– Complexity
2. Problem [What to Change]– Localized Risk Management
• Task Level Insurance Policy• Student Syndrome• Parkinson’s Law• Multi-tasking
3. Solution [What to Change to]– Governing Principle - Global Risk Management
• Project Level Protection• Systems Perspective• Execution Control
3
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Background
• Triple Constraints [Binding Commitments]1. Time [Minimize]2. Capacity [Minimize]3. Content [Maximize]
4
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Background
• Murphy’s Law [Disruption Event]– Number of unknowns– Range of possibilities– Frequency of repetition
• Complexity [Amplification factor]– Degree of integration required– Number of dimensions to be integrated
5
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Presentation Outline
• Background– Governing Principle or Paradigm Shift– Triple Constraints– Complexity– Murphy’s Law
• Problem [What to Change]– Localized Risk Management
• Task Level Insurance Policy• Student Syndrome• Parkinson’s Law• Multi-tasking
• Solution [What to Change to]– Governing Principle - Global Risk Management
• Project Level Protection• Systems Perspective• Execution Control
6
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, WashingtonThe Problem Localized Risk Management Strategy
1. Task level insurance policySee opening scenario – answers?And if it was a task in a project??** How safe is safe enough?**
2. Student SyndromeThe dog ate my homework
3. Parkinson's LawSelf-fulfilling prophecy [good estimating?]
4. Multi-tasking [absence of priorities]Hero or villain?
7
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Problem: Localized Risk Management
Multi-tasking causes delays to spread across all projects, adding as much as 20% to all projects
One Resource, Four Task, from Four Different Projects
9
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Presentation Outline
• Background– Governing Principle or Paradigm Shift– Triple Constraints– Complexity– Murphy’s Law
• Problem [What to Change]– Localized Risk Management
• Task Level Insurance Policy• Student Syndrome• Parkinson’s Law
• Solution [What to Change to]– Global Risk Management
• Project Level Protection• Systems Perspective• Execution Control
9
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Solution
Governing Principle Behind CCPM is:
Aggregation of risk…
Benefits:1. Lower overall protection needed2. Higher degree of “coverage” achieved3. Leading to lower incidence of “failure”
10
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, WashingtonSolutionGlobal Approach to Risk Management
1. Planning1. Project Level vs. Task Level Protection2. Systems Perspective for Multiple Projects
1. Should load for multiple projects be considered?2. Why?3. How?
2. Execution Control1. Promote and encourage team culture2. Controlled work queues3. No multi-tasking work rules4. No batch processing work rules5. Task assignment prioritization6. Management by Exception
11
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
12
Critical Chain Planning Process
1. Traditional Plan
2. Safety Excluded
3. Resource Leveled
4. Critical Chain Marked
From Task to Project Protection
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
.13
Aggregation Principle
The Concept of Risk Pooling:Can someone explain why this works?
Health Care Example:
larger pool = lower cost
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Aggregation Principle
Insurance is designed to work by spreading costs across a large number
of people. Premiums are based on the average costs for the people in
an insured group. This risk-spreading function helps make insurance
reasonably affordable for most people.
http://www.insurance.wa.gov/legislative/factsheets/PoolingRiskReducingCost.asp
14
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
15
Critical Chain Planning
Aggregation Principle [where did some of the safety go?]:
1. Pooled protection provides more coverage
2. Location is just as important as amount
3. Sizing Rule of Thumb 2/3rds to 1/3rd
Buffer is half of preceding chain
PB = Project Buffer FB = Feeding Buffer
Compared to 60 days traditional
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Critical Chain in Execution
16
Schedule Before Execution Starts
“AS OF DATE”
1. T8 experienced a 5 day increase in scope or delay
2. Results in a 2.5 day impact to the project buffer
3. The rest was absorbed by the Critical Chain gap
4. 35-32.5=2.5 7% Complete and 14% Buffer Consumed
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
17
Perspective on Buffers
• Not “rear view mirror watching”
• Predictive/Preventative/Leading Indicator
• Mechanism to Promote and encourage Team Work
• Collaboration / Communication Incentive Mechanism
• Measuring device – Neutral, Normalized Metrics
• Real-time Risk Meter
• Encourages an holistic/goal oriented perspective
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
18
Critical Chain Priority Metric
Project Status Trend Chart or “Fever” Chart
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, WashingtonMulti-Project System
Systems Perspective for Multiple Projects
1. Should load for multiple projects be considered jointly?• Obviously
2. Why?• Prevent System Overload/Multi-tasking
3. How? • By taking a Systems Perspective
19
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
20
Finite Capacity Pipeline
Creating a Multi-Project Schedule
Ingredients:
1. CC Plans [shorter]
2. Strategic Pacing Mechanism
3. Strict Priority Scheme
4. Rate Limit Policy/Guidelines
Due Dates Are Derived
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
21
Multi-Project Execution ControlPipeline Status Snap Shot
0%
Bu
ffer
Con
su
med
10
0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | % Critical Chain Completed0 100
1009
1010
1007
1008
1006
1005
1003
1004
1002
1001
By Portfolio of Projects
In Execution, Buffer Status Drives Priority Decisions, not Project Importance
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
The Upshot…
Benefits1. Operational Coherence – Stability2. 20% Shorter Cycle-Times – Speed3. On-time Performance – Reliability4. More throughput – Growth
Challenges:1. Simple but not easy to grasp – too simple?
2. Requires a change in mindset
3. Takes 120 days for typical 100 person team
4. We don’t need that much improvement
22
AACE International’s 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
23
Questions???
• Hilbert Robinson, Afinitus Group, LLC – www.afinitus.com
• Robert Richards Ph.D,, Stottler Henke Associates, Inc.– [email protected]– www.StottlerHenke.com
