gary palmer critical point consulting 1 - bcs bristol bcs bristol.pdf · 2015. 3. 9. · critical...

Gary Palmer Critical Point Consulting

1

www.criticalpoint.co.uk

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Late

What do we mean by ‘Project Failure’?

2

Over Budget

Below Specification

Below Quality

Any one of:


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Late

3

+ Over Budget

+ Below Specification

+ Below Quality

Why do we need to change? - 1

Because huge numbers of projects are:


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


4

Productivity & Throughput:

Often Low

Excessive Wastage

Slow Progress

Costly


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


5

Business Impact:

Product Expensive

Late to Market

Customer Dissatisfaction

Reputation

Project Failure & Slow Costly Projects Cripples Business


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Late

6

Over Budget

Below Specification

Below Quality

What is the main driver for these failures?

Late projects fuel other failures:


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

1. The traditional methods in use,

VIRTUALLY GUARANTEE these results.

7

2. We have not had a viable alternative.

Until now…

What are the reasons for this?


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

CCPM Statistics:

Project Delivery: 90%+ on time

Project Completion: 20% - 50% Faster

Productivity: 20% - 60% Increase

Critical Chain Project Management

8

Without increasing resources


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

9

By resolving problems in our working methods that:

1. Slow everything down

2. Cause our contingency to be ineffective

3. Cause inefficiencies and wastage

How Does CCPM Deliver These Improvements?


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

‘A transportable set of interlinked techniques and tools that work individually and collaboratively to significantly improve the processes and operation of scheduling and execution in any project, programme and portfolio environment’

What is CCPM?

10


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


What is CCPM?

11

Transportable: Not industry / sector specific

Applicable in any project environment

Works with existing project structures


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


What is CCPM?

12

Techniques: Working practices, Behaviours

Tools: Processes, Software


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


What is CCPM?

13

Individually: Resolve a specific problem

Collaboratively: In unison to support the whole


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


What is CCPM?

14

Improvements: Efficient processes

Faster operation

Better work environment


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


What is CCPM?

15

Scheduling: Optimum, realistic schedule

Effective contingency protection

Execution: Efficient working practices

Excellent progress visibility, focus, control


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


What is CCPM?

16

Projects: Single projects

Programme: Multi-project Any Sector

Portfolio: Enterprise-wide


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Traditional Project Management

The Five Elements of Failure

Task-Level Contingency

Poor Measures & Control

Multi-tasking

Critical Path

Deadline Schedule

17

So, what are the problems in Traditional Proj. Mgmt.?


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g





Multi-tasking

Critical Path

Deadline Schedule

18


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Planned Completion

Characterised by many Deadline Dates and Milestones

Attempt to impose a Rigid construct on a Variable situation

But…actual dates will always change

… and will need constant and continued updating

09/09 1/10

13/09 23/09 04/10

10/09 1/09 15/09 23/09 1/10 15/10

10/09 15/09 21/09 07/10

23/09 22/09

30/09

13/10

22/09 03/10 09/10

09/09 14/09 22/09 13/10

14/09 20/09 06/10 13/10


Task Deadline Scheduling – Planning to Fail

19

19/10


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Shouldn’t early and late finishes balance out?

Usually not.

20




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Potential Early Finish

Parkinson’s Law – ‘Work expands to fill the time available’

Task

Deadline Date

Missed Time-Saving

21




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

3 d 7 days

Late Finish Adds Time

Early Finish Gain Lost

5 days

5 days 5 days

Planned

2 days added to schedule

No benefit to schedule

Parallel Converging Tasks tied to schedule dates

Losses Accumulate - Gains Don’t …And the schedule moves out

22



5 days 5 days 5 days

✓

✓

✓

3 d ✓


Calculation: (Task Probability%^no. of tasks)

With a 90% task probability:

10 tasks = 35% probability

20 tasks = 12%

50 tasks = 0.05%

100 tasks = 0.000026%

Q? - How many tasks in your current project plan?

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Q- What is the probability of all a project’s tasks finishing on time?

23




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Due Dates attempt a rigid structure on a variable situation

A ‘Train Timetable’ - where the trains never run on time

Parkinson’s Law often prevents early finishes

Losses increase time, not offset by gains

Schedule is guaranteed to require frequent changes

Project end-date slip is almost inevitable

Summary

24




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g



Multi-tasking

Critical Path

25

CCPM Schedule


The Five Elements of Success


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Planned Completion

09/09 1/10

13/09 23/09 06/10

10/09 1/09 15/09 23/09 1/10 15/10

10/09 15/09 21/09 07/10

23/09 22/09

30/09

13/10

22/09 03/10 09/10

09/09 14/09 22/09 13/10

14/09 20/09 06/10 13/10



26

Projects have Uncertainties and Variablilities

Why attempt to work tofixed dates and deadlines….

…if we know they will change?


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

09/09 1/10

13/09 23/09 04/10

10/09 1/09 15/09 23/09 1/10 15/10

10/09 15/09 21/09 07/10

23/09 22/09

30/09

13/10

22/09 03/10 09/10

09/09 14/09 22/09 13/10

14/09 20/09 06/10 13/10

27

Estimated Task Dates used for initial planning

CCPM Schedule


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

09/09 1/10

13/09 23/09 04/10

10/09 1/09 15/09 23/09 1/10 15/10

10/09 15/09 21/09 07/10

23/09 22/09

30/09

13/10

22/09 03/10 09/10

09/09 14/09 22/09 13/10

14/09 20/09 06/10 13/10

28

CCPM Schedule

Minimum Internal Due Dates / Deadlines Schedule is used as a Dependency Chart

Each task completes asap and next task is started No need to constantly rework dates


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Task

Deadline Date

CCPM Schedule

29

So now, without deadlines to fuel Parkinson behaviours,


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Task

Deadline Date

CCPM Schedule

30


Our potential Early Finish…


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Task

CCPM Schedule

31


Our potential Early Finish…


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Actual Early Finish

Task

CCPM Schedule

32

…can become a reality.


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

across the whole project

CCPM Schedule

33


Shorter Task Execution = Reduced Project Duration

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

CCPM Schedule

34


CCPM values speed over working to fixed dates

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Summary

Very few internal due dates

Work carried out on an ‘as soon as possible’ basis

A ‘Relay Race’ (not a ‘Train Schedule’)

Early finishes reduce timescales & cost

Flexible structure for a variable environment

Few fixed dates means few schedule updates

CCPM Schedule

35


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g





Multi-tasking

Critical Path

36

CCPM Schedule


37

Familiarity with technology

Known Unknowns

Unknown Unknowns

Fear of Failure

Confidence in Spec.

Estimate chopping

Confidence in own ability

Complexity of the task Familiarity with task

Specification Stability

Multi-tasking


Easy Life Interruptions How Much

Contingency?


38

Familiarity with technology

Known Unknowns

Unknown Unknowns

Fear of Failure

Confidence in Spec.

Estimate chopping

Confidence in own ability

Complexity of the task Familiarity with task

Specification Stability

Multi-tasking


Easy Life Interruptions

A Guess



Effect 1- An Extended Schedule

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Task-Level Contingency creates an extended schedule

A project may contain > 50% embedded contingency

39


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Contingency Work

Deadline Date


Effect 2 – Student Syndrome

Scheduled Start

40

Actual Start

Initially plenty of contingency

No incentive to start immediately Start deferred


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Work

Deadline Date



Scheduled Start

41

Actual Start

Contingency decreased


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Deadline Date



Scheduled Start

42

Other work

Work

Big Problem

Maybe another task is required / preferred

Now no contingency left and work is rushed Then a big problem surfaces…


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Deadline Date



Scheduled Start

43

Other work

Work

Big Problem

And now we have a task over-run…


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Delayed Completion

Planned Completion

If on a Critical Path task = project over-run


Effect 3 – Unprotected Project End-Date

44



Effect 4- Unmanaged Time

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

45

Traditional Embedded Contingency


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Where is the contingency?

How do you measure and manage it?

Maybe 50% of project time is not under control


Effect 4 – Unmanaged Time

46

Project Manager’s View


Inflated ‘Localised’ Estimates which generate

Student Syndrome which results in Parkinson’s Behaviours and

Long, Over-padded Schedules which encourages

Self-Protection leads to

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Unprotected From Delays and which have


Task-level Contingency

Hidden, Unmanaged Contingency

Slow and Costly Projects which are still

Task-Level Contingency - Problem Cascade

47


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g



Multi-tasking

Critical Path

48

CCPM Schedule




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Multi-tasking

Critical Path

49

CCPM Schedule

Project-Level Contingency




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

50

High Levels of Embedded Contingency

CCPM Project-Level Contingency

Traditional Task-Level Contingency (Review)


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Remove task-level contingency

51



Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g



52

Task Estimates have no in-built contingency

Estimates are based on ‘Aggressive-but-possible’ task times


Shorter task durations & much reduced timeline

No space for Parkinson or Student Syndrome

But where is our contingency now?

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g



53


Buffer protects the Project – not individual tasks Provides the project Commit Date

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Aggregate Contingency

Project Commit

Date

Project Buffer

54


Critical Task over-runs are absorbed by the Buffer

No Schedule dates to change

The Project Commit Date is not affected

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Project Protection

Project Commit

Date

Project Buffer

55


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Project Protection

Project Commit

Date

Project Buffer

Buffer Status shows the impact on contingency

Now able to measure and manage our contingency

Buffer Status

56


If a Critical Task finishes early…

The time saved is ‘added back’ into our contingency

Buffer Status always shows the latest position

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Project Protection

Project Commit

Date

Project Buffer

57

Buffer Status


Project Contingency which results in

Student Syndrome which results in

Parkinson’s Behaviours and

Streamlined Schedules with

Aggregated Uncertainties are built into a

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Visible, Manageable Contingency which prevents

Protected From Delays

Fast and Efficient Projects which are


58

Project-Level Contingency Cascade


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g




Multi-tasking

Critical Path

59

CCPM Schedule



Task H

Task F

Task I

Task B Task C Task D

Task G

Task A Task J

Task E

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Critical Path gives a completion date but ignores resources Based ONLY on task dependency & duration

Valid only in an environment without resource constraints

But what happens if we have resource contentions?


Critical Path – A dangerous path to follow?

60

Project Completion

Date


Critical Path Problems

Resource Contentions

Task H

Task F

Task I


Task G

Task A Task J

Task E

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

61

Tasks F & C need the same resources, as do tasks G & I

Proj. Mgr. will bid for more resources but if not possible…



Post–CP Resource Levelling

Task E

Task H

Task F

Task I

Task B Task D

Task G

Task A Task J

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Task C

62



Post–CP Resource Levelling

Task E

Task H

Task F

Task I

Task B Task D

Task G

Task A Task J

Levelling resolves the issue… but increases timescales

And the vision of the Critical Path dominates

…and so tactical manoeuvres soon start...

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Task C

63

Extra Time Req’d



1- Multi-Tasking

Task H

Task B Task D Task A Task J

Task E

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Quality may be reduced

Completion predictability becomes less certain

64



2 - Overtime

Task H


Task E

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

…Extra hours need to be worked

Scheduling & Control becomes difficult

65



Slippage

Task H


Task E

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Multi-tasking is high risk

High potential for slippage

Diminishing returns due to staff morale / burnout?

66



Scope Cut

Task H


Task E

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Last resort to hit target date is a Scope Cut

May cause work in other areas

Further degrades quality

‘Project Meltdown’

Sco

pe

Cu

t Sc

op

e C

ut

Sco

pe

Cu

t

67


Incorrect Dependency Path often with

Misleading Priorities which encourages a spiral of

Ignoring Resources Contentions leads to an

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Unstable Schedule



Fire-fighting tactics which leads to an

Unrealistic Completion Dates and

Out of Control Project with an

Critical Path Cascade

68


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g




Multi-tasking

69

CCPM Schedule


Critical Path


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Multi-tasking

70

CCPM Schedule


Critical Chain




Task H

Task F

Task I


Task G

Task A Task J

Task E

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

CCPM Critical Chain

1. Build Dependency Network As Normal

Include Resource Requirements

- right at the start

71


CCPM Critical Chain

2. CCPM Software - Resource Levelling

Task E

Task H

Task F

Task I


Task G

Task A Task J

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

72

Resource-levelling the schedule…

Prevents over-allocation of resources


CCPM Critical Chain

3. CCPM Software - Identify the Critical Chain

Task E

Task H

Task F

Task I


Task G

Task A Task J

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

CCPM treats Resource Constraints as dependencies…

Priority sequence also goes to resource dependent tasks

A realistic critical sequence – The Critical Chain

73


Critical Chain / Critical Path Comparison

Task E

Task H

Task F

Task I


Task G

Task A Task J

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Task H

Task F

Task I


Task G

Task A Task J

Task E

Critical Chain

Critical Path

74

Irrespective of what you draw in the CP schedule, the real

situation will be driven by the realities of resource constraints


Critical Chain / Critical Path Comparison

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Task H

Task F

Task I


Task G

Task A Task J

Task E

Critical Chain

Critical Path

75

If there are no resource clashes, the Critical Chain will be

the same as the Critical Path

Task H

Task F

Task I


Task G

Task A Task J

Task E


Correct Dependency Path with

Realistic Priorities which provides a

Including Resources Contentions leads to a

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Stable Schedule

Realistic Project Duration and

Project Under Control with a

CCPM Critical Chain

Critical Chain Cascade

76


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g




Multi-tasking

77

CCPM Schedule


Critical Chain


3d

Task 1: 9 days Task 2: 9 days Task 3: 9 days

Time

3d 3d 3d 3d 3d 3d 3d 3d

Without Multi-tasking:

With Multi-tasking:

27 Days

31 Days

• Speed – Everything is delayed • Quality – Likely to be less • Productivity - Reduced

Day 24 Day 9

• Nothing gets completed until day 24.

Task 1: + 15 days late (+165%)



Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Traditional Project Management Multi-tasking:

The Illusion of being productive

78


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Multi-tasking; The SINGLE best way…

…to screw up TWO JOBS.

It slows everything down

It reduces quality

It wastes time and costs more

It is bad for morale

It complicates scheduling & control

It removes planning predictability

It causes delivery delays

Summary

Traditional Project Management Multi-tasking:

The Illusion of being productive

79


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


80

CCPM Schedule


Critical Chain

Single-tasking




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

One task only worked on at a time

No interruptions

Dedicated work until task complete

CCPM - Task Management

Single Tasking

81


Task 1: 9 days Task 2: 9 days Task 3: 9 days

Time

Without Multi-tasking:

27 Days

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

CCPM Single Tasking

The reality of being productive

Return to effective and efficient working


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

‘Good’ Multi-Tasking Non-Project / background, no dependencies or deadlines.

Training/education. QA tasks. Flexi-time.

‘Bad’ Multi-Tasking ‘Double-booked’ on overlapping tasks.

Covering Additional / Support roles.

‘Ugly’ Multi-Tasking Personnel allocated simultaneous project tasks.

Endemic, cultural.

CCPM Single Tasking

Can Multi-tasking be removed?

83


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

It improves quality

It reduces time & money spent

It simplifies scheduling & control

It enables planning predictability

It is good for morale

It speeds everything up

Summary

CCPM Single Tasking

84


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g




Multi-tasking

85

CCPM Schedule


Critical Chain

Single-tasking


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Use of ‘Percentage Complete’:

Report to expectation – no bad news to give

Can’t be challenged – only task owner knows

Often simply aligned with time used

Optimism that time can be pulled back

Infrequent reporting gives psychological cushion

Reality is often ignored - An easy place to hide


Progress Measurement

86


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Measurements - Percentage Complete, Time / money used / left

Position against base line, Milestones achieved…

What do they tell us? How much time/money used - Retrospective

What do they tell us about the future? Very little…



87

What is the Only Question PM’s get asked?


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

‘Are you on target?’

What do we really need to know?

How exposed are we?

Have we got enough safety in hand?

Is there a trend?

Is it upward or downward?

Should we be taking any action?

Where should we be taking action?



88


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Often not a true / realistic picture

Real Status / safety contingency is hidden

False sense of schedule security

Leads to persisting ‘90% complete’ / late-emerging issues

Can cause major / incorrect re-scheduling

Doesn’t answer the Big Question

Summary



89


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g



Multi-tasking

90

CCPM Schedule


Critical Chain

Single-tasking

Good Measures Visible Control


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

CCPM Progress Reporting:

Often

When any significant change occurs

91

CCPM Progress Measurement

Is task complete?

If not, how much task-time left remaining?

Frequency:

Questions:


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


‘Critical Chain’ Completed

✓

✓

✓

Critical Tasks completed reported into CCPM software

92

A

B C D

E F


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Contingency Buffer Usage

93

+3

+3

A

B C D

E F

✓


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Contingency Buffer Usage

Task C has no effect on buffer

94

Buffer Used

+3

+3

+3 +3

Buffer Remaining

A

B C D

E F

✓


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Seeing into the Future

Immediate report from task D that an extra 5 days will be required

This report immediately shows in Buffer Usage

Provides ‘view ahead’ notification of future position

95

Buffer Used

+3

+3

+5

+3 +3

Buffer Remaining

D C B

A E F

+5

Early Report


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Amount of critical work completed: Critical Chain

Put these two together…


96

Now we have two key measurements:

How much contingency remaining: Project Buffer


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Singular

Objective

Predictive

Easily interpreted

Auto constructed

Up-to-date

Immediate


The Fever Chart

97


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Frequent Reporting:

Progress is always up-to-date

Project position is always up-to-date

Summary - 1


98


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

‘Remaining Duration’ Reporting:

More accurate / realistic picture

Focusses the task worker

Real Status / safety contingency is visible

Persisting ‘90% complete’ syndrome banished

Prevents late-emerging issues

Summary - 2


99


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Fever Chart:

Combined view of progress and contingency

Trends provide early warning

Objective, singular, visual, always available

Prevents unnecessary schedule changes

Answers the Big Question!

Summary - 3


100


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g



Multi-tasking

101

CCPM Schedule


Critical Chain

Single-tasking

Good Measures Visible Control

So, have we fixed all of the problems?

Yes – but not just these; CCPM fixes a bigger problem and the

reason that past improvements have not succeeded


Vicious Circles C

riti

cal P

oin

t C

on

sult

ing

102


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


The Five Problems



Multi-tasking

Critical Path

Deadline Schedule

103 What problem is also caused by these five issues?


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

104 Each individual issue causes schedule changes



Multi-tasking

Critical Path

Deadline Schedule


Schedule Instability


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

105



Multi-tasking

Critical Path

Deadline Schedule

And Schedule changes cause other problems and…


Problem Self-Perpetuation


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

106 Each individual problem area perpetuates others



Multi-tasking

Critical Path

Deadline Schedule




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g



Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

107 Locked-in, self-perpetuating, systemic failure



Multi-tasking

Critical Path

Deadline Schedule


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

CCPM Solutions

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

108


CCPM Schedule

Critical Chain

Single-tasking

Rem. Duration Visible Control

Fixing the internal problems removes vicious circles:


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

CCPM Schedule Stability

109 And the causes of schedule changes and their impact

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes

Schedule Changes


CCPM Schedule

Critical Chain


Single-tasking


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g



Single-tasking

Critical Chain

CCPM Schedule

CCPM Schedule Stability

110

CCPM removes the causes of problem perpetuation,

schedule changes and systemic failure


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Seven Problems of Traditional PM…

…and the Seven Solutions of CCPM

Traditional Problems:

Deadline Scheduling


Critical Path

Multi-tasking


Schedule Volatility

Problem Perpetuation

111

CCPM Solutions:

Flexible Scheduling


Critical Chain

Single-tasking

Good Measures & Control

Schedule Stability

Solution Constancy

Poor Work Environment

= ‘Progressive Excellence’

Good Work Environment

= ‘Terminal Mediocrity’


Programme

& Portfolio

Myth

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Achieving Terminal

Mediocrity on a

Large Scale 112


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

The Programme & Portfolio Myth

1. That the more projects you start, the more you will get done

113

CCPM in Programme and Portfolio


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

3mths

Project 1: 9mths Project 2: 9mths Project3: 9mths

3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths

Project Fragmentation:

27 mths

30 mths

mth 23

mth 9

If projects have to time-slice,

Fragmentation will delay all projects

Driven by edict for all projects to be shown as started 114

Overloaded Programme

1. Project Time-Slicing


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

3mths

Project 1: 9 mths Project 2: 9mths Project3: 9mths

3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths

27 mths

30 mths

9 mths

21 mths

Longer elapsed time gives more exposure time for changes

Changes generate more work and extend projects further

Meanwhile unfinished work gets ‘rusty’ 115


Project Time-Slicing


116

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 1

Project 3

Project 2


117

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 1

Project 3

Resource A

Resource A

Resource A

Project 2


118

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 1

Project 3

Resource A

Resource A

Resource A

Project 2


119

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 2

Project 1

Project 3

Resource A

Resource A

Resource A


120

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 2

Project 1

Project 3

Resource A

Resource A

Resource A


121

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 2

Project 1

Project 3

Resource A

Resource A

Resource A


122

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 2

Project 1

Project 3

Resource A

Resource A

Resource A


123

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 2

Project 1

Project 3

Resource A

Resource A

Resource A


124

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 2

Project 1

Project 3

Resource A

Resource A

Resource A

Multiple impacts of ‘close-coupled’ resource between projects


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Frequently great pressure to start more projects -

Often ignoring the realities of resource capacity 125

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6


Simultaneous Projects


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

126

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6

Reality at Working Level

Insufficient resource causes Cross-Project Reallocations

Exterior View




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

127

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6



All projects suffer and get delayed

Exterior View




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

128

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6



All projects suffer and get delayed

‘Who shouts loudest’ gets the resources

Exterior View




Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3


129

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6


Gaps left in projects fuel Multi-tasking

Exterior View


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3


130

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6

Reality at Working Level Exterior View

. . . .?

. . . .?

. .?

. .?

. .?

Major impact is that completion becomes unpredictable


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

An Overloaded system causes:

Fighting over Insufficient Resources

Volatile / Unworkable Schedules

Fuels Multi-tasking

Causes Delays

Loss of Completion Predictability

Summary



Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

131


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

The Programme & Portfolio Myth

So what can we do to improve this?

1. That the more projects you start, the more you will get done

132

… You won’t


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3


133

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6

Reality at Working Level Exterior View

. . . .?

. . . .?

. .?

. .?

. . .?

How did we get here?


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Problem 1: Belief that ‘More Work In = More Work Out’. .

Creates overload of work in progress (WIP).

Causes waiting time (delays) and multi-tasking.

All work runs slower.

CCPM in Multi-Project Environment: Maximising Throughput

134

Solution 1:

Recognise that MWI / MWO doesn’t work.

Stop feeding more than system can manage.


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Problem 2: Unclear/Competing/Varying Priorities .

Causes changes in scheduling.




135

Solution 2:

Priorities are mandatory and business-driven.

‘It’s all Top Priority!’ is banned.

All decisions start with priorities.


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Problem 3: Lack of regime to prevent overloading. .

No loading rules = No control = Overloading.




136

Solution 3:

Start new projects only when capacity allows

‘Stagger’ new projects starts to avoid major issues.


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

137

Project E

Project D

Project C

Project A

Project B

Project F

CCPM in Multi-Project Environment: Prioritise!

Priority 1 Priority 6

Priority 5

Priority 4

Priority 3

Priority 2


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

138

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6

CCPM in the Multi-Project Environment:

Priority 1

Priority 6

Priority 5

Priority 4

Priority 3

Priority 2


Project 6

Project 4

Project 5

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

139

Project 1

Project 3


? =

Project 2

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=FSxxYmrPk_2cfM&tbnid=65kllqBV_aSS_M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.enforcedarch.com/fuel/&ei=ms7nUt6BDIm10wWsmICYBw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.ZG4&psig=AFQjCNFaCxqJPVWVggZVvWE-mv2fpqz10Q&ust=1391009712897206


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

140

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6


? =

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=FSxxYmrPk_2cfM&tbnid=65kllqBV_aSS_M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.enforcedarch.com/fuel/&ei=ms7nUt6BDIm10wWsmICYBw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.ZG4&psig=AFQjCNFaCxqJPVWVggZVvWE-mv2fpqz10Q&ust=1391009712897206


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

141

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

Project 4

Project 5

Project 6

CCPM in Multi-Project Environment:

?


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

142


?

KR

KR

KR

KR

KR

KR


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g CCPM in Multi-Project Environment:

KR

KR

KR

KR


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

144


KR

KR

KR

KR

KR

KR


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

145


What’s the new picture look like?

KR

KR

KR

KR


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

• Prioritise !

• ‘Stagger’ project starts to avoid major contentions

• Start new projects only when capacity allows


146

Solution Summary:


It’s what you finish…

…not what you start.

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

147


148

Proj A

Proj B

Proj C

Proj E

Proj F

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f B

uff

er

Use

d

Percentage of Critical Chain Completed

Multi-project Fever Chart

Programme Fever Chart focusses on projects that need attention

CCPM Programme Management

The Programme Fever Chart

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


149

MULTI-PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Projects managed by Priorities & Buffer Usage

MULTI-PROJECT WIP / PIPELINING

Reduced WIP & Staggered Projects

REALISTIC SCHEDULE

Critical Chain includes Resource Dependencies

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

EFFICIENT WORKING PRACTICES

ABP Estimates, Relay Race, Remaining Duration

VISIBLE, FOCUSSED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Project Buffer / Fever Chart: Trends, Focus


The Evidence

for CCPM

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

150


High Tech 3M Advasense Technologies Agilent Technologie AMCC AMD Avaya Avitronics Barco Bell Canada BT Radianz Computer Sciences Corp Cray, Inc. ECI Telecom Ltd. Eclozion Informatique Ericsson Estonian Telephone Fairchild Semiconductor Graftech Hewlett Packard Hitachi Computer Products Honeywell IBM Ismeca Europe Semiconductor ITT Canon L-3 Communication Systems LSI Logic Lucent Technologies Marvell

High Tech / Medtronic, Inc. Microsoft Motorola Numonyx Philips Semiconductors Pioneer Qualcomm RSA Security SanDisk Sapient Seagate Technology LLC Sony Ericsson Spirent Communications Sprint Sun Microsystems Symbian Tadiran Spectralink Tektronix TT Technologies Tundra Semiconductor Workscape Xerox Corporation Business Education Ashridge Management College Project Management Institute London Business School + Over 160 Universities

Life Sciences Abbott Labs Adirondack Surgery AHIS-St. Vincent Health AMGEN Andover Healthcare Inc. Arterain Medical Baxter Boston Scientific Central Dupage Health Bovis Pharmaceuticals Converge Medical Inc. Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. Edwards Lifescience Ethicon Gambro Healthcare GlaxoSmithKline Johnson & Johnson Medtronic Merck Medco Managed Care Pfizer Pharmacia Roche Diagnostics Spectranetics Tenet Health Care Tyco Healthcare United Behavioral Health Vascore Medical Ventana

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Companies Using CCPM - 1

151


Aerospace and Defense Aerojet Corporation Air Force Institute of Tech. BAE Systems The Boeing Company General Dynamics Halliburton ITT Space Systems Lockheed NASA Northrop Grumman Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Raytheon SAAB Avionics US Air Force

Consumer Products Coca-Cola Colgate Palmolive Del Monte Foods Fonterra Gillette Heineken IKEA Kraft Foods McKee Foods Nike Philip Morris

Industrial ABB Accoat Advanced Energy Technology Alcan Alfa Lava American Rubber Products Applied Plasmonics AREVA Atomic Energy of Canada . Balfour Beatty Bimba Manufacturing Bosal Bosch Rexroth Ltda. Brice Manufacturing BVR Technologies Company C.F. Roark Welding. Callaway Golf Celite Corporation s Conoco Corning Cable Systems Cueros Industrializados DaimlerChrysler UK Danfoss Delta Faucet Company Detroit Diesel Reman-West DuPont Eastman Kodak Company

Industrial/ ExxonMobil Chemical Fisher Controls Fluid Brasil Sistemas Fluke Corporation Fuel Cell Energy GE Industrial Systems Hach Honda ITT Corporation Kawasaki Heavy Industries, M&M Precision Systems Marshall Industries Merichem Chemicals Milwaukee Forge Rail care Raychem Rolls Royce Siemens Sylvania Unilever Tata UPC Technology Volvo Source:TOC International, Gatlinburg, TN.

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Companies Using CCPM - 2

152


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

After having used it in 2,523 public works projects in 2007 and over 4,000 projects in 2008, the Japanese government now requires that CCPM be used on all public works projects (approximately 20,000 projects per year).”

Japanese Government:

153 * Source: ProChain Inc. Copyright © 2013 by ProChain Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

Client Quotes:*

• ‘Reduced first project more than 10 months (approx. 50%)’ • ‘Between 25 - 50 % reduction on first 10 projects’ • ‘On-time completion of projects increased from 22% to well above 90%’ • ‘On-time completion of projects now at 100%’ • ‘Average project length reduced by more than 50%’ • ‘On-time delivery of projects went from 40% to nearly 100%’ • ‘More than doubled project throughput’ • ‘Return on investment conservatively 500:1’

Video Testimonials:

See Realization Inc. website http://www.realization.com/results/mro-turnaround


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Professional Recognition

APM Body of Knowledge. "An alternative to creating networks based on activity dependencies is to use a technique called critical chain. This method considers the availability of resources and the interdependencies between resources.“ - APM Body of Knowledge 6th edition (2012) p 155

Association for Project Management

PMI Body of Knowledge “Critical chain is a schedule network analysis technique that modifies the project schedule to account for limited resources. Initially, the project schedule network diagram is built using duration estimates with required dependencies and defined constraints as inputs. The critical path is then calculated. After the critical path is identified, resource availability is entered and the resource-limited schedule result is determined. The resulting schedule often has an altered critical path.” PMI BoK 4th edition. Ch 6 Time Management p.155

Project Management Institute

154

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=apm&source=web&cd=&sqi=2&ved=0CIcBEKEQUAE&url=https://plus.google.com/114687352375530136328?socpid=1&socfid=web:infocard:default:image&ei=-k6zUKOXJPGR0QWqlIGABg&usg=AFQjCNE_my-3yDwj9eKQ2gKdcnYyuZC5LA


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Professional Recognition

Conference Presentation Critical Chain Project Management using Microsoft Project and Prochain: Implementing Project Portfolio Management.

The Theory of Constraints International Certification Organization (TOCICO) is a global not-for-profit certification organization for TOC practitioners, consultants and academics to develop and administer certification standards, and facilitate the exchange of latest developments. TOCICO has run an international conference for the past 11 years.

155


156

The Theory of Constraints & CCPM - 30yrs in the making:

The work and books of Eli Goldratt

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Manufacturing, Accounting, Production The Goal, The Race, The Haystack Syndrome

The Thinking Process The Jonah Program, The Choice

Distribution, Marketing, Management It’s Not Luck

Project Management Critical Chain

TOC & Technology Necessary But Not Sufficient

TOC & Business Strategy Viable Vision

Retail Isn’t It Obvious?

Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Development:

Result of many years of continuous development

Based on Theory of Constraints (TOC) 1980’s – 1990’s

Needed software to be truly viable

Software too slow to develop

Software now mature & robust (see ProChain.com)

Key Publications by Eliyahu Goldratt:

1984 'The Goal' – TOC in manufacturing

1997 ‘Critical Chain’ - Applying TOC to project management

CCPM Potted History

157


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

‘Critical Chain Project Management presents us with an opportunity to plan projects well for maybe the very first time. We should make sure that we break with our old traditions of how we have done things in the past, and re-plan our projects from scratch.

But planning is only half the story. The real power of CCPM comes from the control afforded during the execution or deployment of the job. Buffer status and buffer management allows us unprecedented feedback on the progress of the project and where to focus attention and where not.

And maybe this is the most important factor in the whole approach.

We have a totally new and systemic way to manage projects. We should make the very most of this opportunity.’ Dr. Kelvin Youngman

Last Word

158


Cri

tica

l Po

int

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Over 15 years experience of CCPM Consultancy,

Implementation and Training

in

Multiple companies / Multiple industries

[email protected]


UK: 01892 506881 | Intl: +44 1892 506881

Critical Point Consulting

159


160

Questions?

gary palmer critical point consulting 1 - bcs bristol bcs bristol.pdf · 2015. 3. 9. · critical...

Documents