Does better scheduling drive execution success ppt
1 like263 views
This document summarizes a presentation given by Dr. Dan Patterson on measuring schedule quality and its impact on project execution success. The presentation discussed developing a Schedule Maturity Framework to assess schedule quality, introduced a Schedule Quality Measurement tool called the Fuse Schedule Index, and demonstrated how schedule analysis and risk adjustment using Acumen software helped optimize a gas pipeline project's schedule. Analyzing over 100 projects showed a correlation between sound project scheduling and successful on-time completion.
Does better scheduling drive execution success ppt
- 1. Does Better Scheduling Drive Execution Success? Dr. Dan Patterson, PMP CEO & Founder, Acumen
- 2. About Me • Legacy – 20 years of PPM experience – WelcomHome, WelcomRisk, TerraFirma – Pertmaster • Thought Leader – Risk-based analytics – S1>S5™ schedule maturity framework • Founder of Acumen
- 3. Acumen Proven Project Analytics • Project Management Software Company • Insight into challenges & use of analytics to overcome them • Core Concepts: 1. Project success requires a sound plan 2. Forecast accuracy requires risk consideration Realistic Scheduling Critiqued The Base Risk-Adjusted Optimized Team-AlignedS5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Product Offerings Risk Workshops Acumen Fuse® Software Training
- 4. Overview A Research Project Approach Fuse Software Demonstration Questions Measuring Schedule Quality Project Execution Measurement Results and Discussion
- 5. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ChanceofSuccess Maturity Level S1 • Schedule Basis • Owner/contractor schedule S2 • Critiqued Schedule • Ensure structural integrity S3 • Risk-Adjusted Schedule • Account for risk/uncertainty S4 • Optimized Target Scenarios • Schedule acceleration S5 • Team Validated Scenario • Buy-in on optimization Schedule Maturity Framework
- 6. A Research Project • Hypothesis – Is there a correlation between sound project scheduling and successful, on-time completion? • Projects Surveyed – 100’s of major CapEx projects – Ranged in size from US$15MM – US$30B – Both owner and contractor involved
- 7. Approach • Quantitative modeling – Quality of the plan – Quality of the execution • Challenges – Multiple standards – Binary measurements of execution
- 8. Schedule Quality Measurement • Fuse Schedule Index™ – Used across industries – Metrics combined with applicable thresholds • Metrics – Logic Density™ – Insufficient Detail™
- 9. Project Execution Measurement • Traditional methods – Issues of granularity • Baseline Compliance Analysis™ – Acumen-developed method
- 10. Baseline Compliance • More than just a date comparison • Measures period-compliance • Included in Acumen Fuse® library Compliance Scenarios On-Time Start, On-Time Finish On-Time Start, Finishes Late Starts Late, Finishes Late5 4 //33 Started Early, Finished Early Started Early, On-Time Finish2 1
- 11. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ProbabilityofOn-TimeCompletion Fuse Schedule Index™ Results
- 12. Metric Analysis Benefit • Pinpoint shortcomings • Project characteristics • Slice and Dice About • 300+ metrics • Percentage: context • Threshold: acceptability
- 14. Acumen Fuse® Software Demonstration Case Study
- 15. Case Study #3 Realistic Scheduling Critiqued The Base Risk-Adjusted Optimized Team-AlignedS5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Schedule Acceleration/Risk Reduction • 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
- 16. S1 > S2 Realistic Scheduling Critiqued The Base Risk-Adjusted Optimized Team-AlignedS5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Schedule Review • Sanction Board Requirements – Risk-adjusted forecast P75 – Fuse Schedule Index 75+ • Project Status – S1 showing Dec 13 first gas – Risk assessment not yet conducted
- 17. 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
- 18. GasCom Logic Density™ Planning Consistency • Determine Logic Hotspots™ in schedule • Level of detail was lacking towards the end of the project – mainly around interfaces & integration More definition needed
- 19. Logic Redundancy • Removal of redundancy led to a cleaner, more robust schedule 8% redundancy
- 20. S1 > S2 Realistic Scheduling Critiqued The Base Risk-Adjusted Optimized Team-AlignedS5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Summary • S2 First Gas date: May 2014 – Risk-adjusted forecast P75 – Fuse Schedule Index 75+ • Project Status – S1 showing Dec 13 first gas – Risk assessment not yet conducted 5 months S2: May 2014S1: Dec 2013
- 21. Float Analysis • S1 showed high float in early stage of project • S2 resolved schedule showed the opposite • Early acceleration opportunity went away 0 50 100 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 2014S1 Average Float S2 Average Float Originally perceived opportunity for making up lost time through float Resolved schedule not offering early stage schedule acceleration
- 22. S2 > S3 Realistic Scheduling Critiqued The Base Risk-Adjusted Optimized Team-AlignedS5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Risk Analysis • Objective: – Determine a P75 First Gas date • Conducted a Risk Workshop Uncertainty Risk Events Schedule
- 23. Perception of Risk 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% 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
- 24. Risk Insight: Inputs Aggressive • Skew to the right Conservative • Skew to the left Broad Risk Range • Range <> duration Questionable Range • Accidently includes risk events No Risk • Missed ranging Average Risk Range • Degree of uncertainty No upside • Can only be later No Downside • Can only be earlier Wrong • Inputs don’t align
- 26. Risk Insight: Exposure High criticality • Risk indicator Hidden critical paths • Unique insight Risk Hotspots™ • Risky & complex logic Schedule risk drivers • True risk metric High Contingency • How much buffer needed? Average Risk exposure • Risk Trending/path
- 28. S2 > S3 Realistic Scheduling Critiqued The Base Risk-Adjusted Optimized Team-AlignedS5 S4 S3 S2 S1 • 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 S1: Dec 2013 S2: May 20145 S3: Oct 201410
- 29. S3 > S4 Realistic Scheduling Critiqued The Base Risk-Adjusted Optimized Team-AlignedS5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Getting back to Dec. 2013 • Risk Mitigation: – Response plan identified for key risks – Response plans added to schedule – Assessed cost/benefit of mitigation – $100MM investment to save 1 month
- 30. S3 > S4 Realistic Scheduling Critiqued The Base Risk-Adjusted Optimized Team-AlignedS5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Getting back to Dec. 2013 • 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…
- 31. LNG Facility • Criteria set drives acceleration – Reduce duration • More resources – Changed calendars • Contractor incentive – Delay Train 2 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
- 32. How did this work? Fuse 360 Acceleration • CPM simulation • Critical path focus • Incremental push • Prioritize – Earliest/latest – Longest durations – Least resistance
- 33. S3 > S4 > S5 Realistic Scheduling Critiqued The Base Risk-Adjusted Optimized Team-AlignedS5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Summary • 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
- 34. The Results • Fully vetted, bought-into schedule • Risk-adjusted • LNG Facility accelerated to align with pipeline • Mitigation plan sponsored by board • Sanction awarded! 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
- 35. Q&A
- 36. More information: White papers: www.projectacumen.com Software Trial: www.projectacumen.com/trial Twitter: @projectacumen Email: info@projectacumen.com