Achieving the Unachievable: Aligning a Project with Stakeholder Expectations
-
Upload
acumen -
Category
Technology
-
view
687 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Achieving the Unachievable: Aligning a Project with Stakeholder Expectations
Achieving the Unachievable A Case Study on Aligning a Project with Stakeholder Objectives
Dr. Dan Patterson PMP | CEO & Founder Acumen
enterprise project analysis
S1: Build
S2: Critique
S3: Risk-Adjust
S4: Optimize
S5: Validate
! Acumen: Project Management Software Company ! Market leader in Analytics; 20 year legacy ! Oracle Primavera & Microsoft partner
Introductions
S1 > S5™ Framework Acumen Core Offerings
Risk Assessment Workshops
Acumen Fuse®
Software Training
! Case study: GasCom ! LNG Pipeline & Facility Owner ! Early FEED stage
! Project readying for sanction approval ! Investment board Dec 2013 P75 First Gas ! Gas Sales contract already established
! GasCom adopted Acumen S1>S5 ! Required contractors to achieve Fuse Schedule
Index™ of 75% ! Schedule developed in Primavera P6 ! All analytics conducted using Acumen Fuse
February 10, 2012
3
Case Study Introduction
S1 • Schedule Basis • Reflects latest scope/contractor updates
S2 • Critiqued Schedule • Structurally sound, no contingency, sound logic
S3 • Risk-Adjusted Schedule • Estimate uncertainty, risk events
S4 • Optimized Target Scenarios • Reduced hot spots, higher confidence
S5 • Team Validated Scenario • Buy-in on mitigation plans
February 10, 2012
4
GasCom S1 > S5 Approach
! Deterministic date of Dec 2013 ! Bidding contractors submitted their
schedules to GasCom ! GasCom needed to ensure sufficient
realism in the schedules ! Looked for means of compressing the
schedule to show that an earlier First Gas was achievable
February 10, 2012
5
S1 > S2 Schedule Review
! Metric Analysis ! Quality of logic ! Float analysis ! Realism of durations ! Contractor maturity/realism
! Based on the Fuse metric library
February 10, 2012
6
Schedule Critique
[demo of standard Schedule analysis]
February 10, 2012
7
Fuse Schedule Index™ Analysis by Contractor
! Bidder B failed Schedule Quality review ! Quality was less than 75% threshold
! Had to re-submit resolved schedule ! Used Fuse Schedule Assistant™ to fix
shortcomings
February 10, 2012
8
Schedule Analysis Results
February 10, 2012
9
GasCom Schedule Cleanse
Lags converted to activities
February 10, 2012
10 Impact of Schedule Cleanse
5 month slippage
! Use of FS, FF, SF, SS links ! SS links don’t account for durations ! Lags hide schedule detail ! Leads cause reverse dates ! Circular logic between projects ! Out of sequence updates ! Open start/finish: hidden open ends ! Logic Density™ ! Logic Hotspot™ ! Redundancy Index™
February 10, 2012
11
Logic Integrity
A
B
C
redundant
February 10, 2012
12
GasCom Logic Density™ ! Measure of complexity & soundness ! Dual-band threshold: 2 to 6… ! Determine Logic Hotspots™ in schedule ! GasCom the level of detail was lacking towards the end
of the project – mainly around interfaces & integration
More definition needed
! Test to ensure true path to First Gas ! Analysis showed that there was an error in
the schedule with a break in the path around Early Works
! As a result of fixing this missing path, First Gas moved to the right by 2 months
February 10, 2012
13
Driving Logic Analysis
14 Removal of Logic Redundancy
8% redundancy
Removal of redundancy led to a cleaner, more robust schedule
! S1 showed high float in early stage of project ! S2 resolved schedule showed the opposite ! Sanction acceleration opportunity went away
February 10, 2012
15
GasCom Float Analysis
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 percieved opportunity for making up
lost time through float absorbtion in early stage of
project
Resolved schedule not offering early stage schedule
acceleration
! Bidder schedules all passed the Schedule Quality Index™ Assessment
! Missing logic was added ! Lags converted to activities ! Opportunity for schedule acceleration was
understood (back-end loaded)
February 10, 2012
16
S1 > S2 Summary
5 months S1: Dec 2013 S2: May 2014
! Objective: to determine a risk-adjusted P75 First Gas ! Risk workshop conducted ! True risk exposure was actually at end of project
February 10, 2012
17
S2 > S3 Risk Analysis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
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
Team Perception
Actual Risk Hotspots
! Hidden critical paths ! Risk hot Spots™ ! Determined that Land acquisition activities were
extremely critical yet weren’t identified in the schedule
February 10, 2012
18
Risk Insight
Land acquisition
! P75 risk-adjusted First Gas: Oct 2014 ! 10 months later than board expectations
! Key risk hot spots in schedule identified ! Long Lead procurement items
! Hidden path identified ! Driven by land acquisition delaying pipeline early
works
February 10, 2012
19
S3 Summary
5 S1: Dec 2013 S2: May 2014 10 S3: Oct 2014
S4: Getting back to December 2013… Risk Mitigation Plan
! Response plan identified for each key risk
! These plans became part of the overall schedule
! Enabled cost/benefit of the mitigation plan to be assessed
! $100MM investment to save 1 month
! LNG pipeline ready for hookup: Feb 2013
! LNG Facility ready to receive gas: Nov 2013
! Focus needed to be on accelerating the LNG facility
! Could even afford to slow down pipeline/field work by a couple of months…
February 10, 2012
20
Schedule Acceleration
! Drive acceleration ! Reduce duration
! More resources
! Changed calendars ! Contractor incentive
! Delay Train 2
LNG Facility Acceleration Criteria Set
LNG Facility
Script Objective “accelerate Facility by 6
months”
Step 1 Accelerate Jetty construction
Step 2 Delay Train 2 activities
Step 3 Introduce 6 day working week/larger camp
! CPM simulation ! Critical path focus ! Incremental push ! Prioritize
! Earliest/latest ! Longest durations ! Least resistance
February 10, 2012
22
How Did This Work?
! LNG Facility was able to be accelerated sufficiently so as to not be the driving path in the schedule
! Deterministic First Gas of August 2013 ! 4 months earlier than Dec 2013 but not a
valid comparison! ! Sanction board wanted a P75 date not a
deterministic ! Risk-adjusted S4 date of February 2014 ! Only 2 months later than target…
February 10, 2012
23
S4 Summary
! A further 2 months acceleration was still required… ! New mitigation plans developed based on the
updated risk analysis after the schedule compression ! Model showed that if the board would sanction a
further $500MM spend to sponsor the more aggressive mitigation plan, then P75 could be brought back to Dec 2013.
! Project team went to the board with both options and were duly granted the green-light for the more aggressive plan so as to achieve earlier production…
February 10, 2012
24
S5 Team Buy-in
February 10, 2012
25
GasCom First Gas Dates
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
S1 - base S2 - resolved S3 - risk-adjusted
S4 - accelerated S5 - mitigated
0
5
10
2 0
P75 S
ched
ule
Del
ay F
rom
Dec
2013 1
st G
as (
mon
ths)
Scenario
Resolved, risk-adjusted,
accelerated, mitigated
February 10, 2012
26
The End Result ! Fully vetted, bought-into schedule ! Risk-adjusted ! LNG Facility accelerated to align with pipeline ! Mitigation plan sponsored by board ! Sanction awarded!
February 10, 2012
27 Better Planning Drives Project Success
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pro
bab
ilit
y of
On-
Tim
e C
omple
tion
Fuse Quality Index™
28 Sample of Completed S1>S5 Projects
Top of bar represents sanctioned target completion date
Diamond represents actual/final forecast completion date
Vertical bar represents forecasted risk range
More information: White papers: www.projectacumen.com Software Trial: www.projectacumen.com/trial Twitter: @projectacumen
Email: [email protected]