integrated concurrent engineering - stanford universitykunz/chalmers/w2iceoverview.pdf ·...

Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering

Integrated Concurrent Engineering

John Kunz

Big idea: Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) is a social method, helped by technology, to create and evaluate multi-discipline, multi-stakeholder VDC models extremely rapidly.

RateBaseline

($K) ChangeYear-1

(K$)Revenue 100,000 2% 102,000Cost of contracted work 85% 85,000 -2.0% 84,660Cost of self-performed work 10% 10,000 2.0% 12,240Gross Margin 5,000 5,100Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,040IT investment 70Amortized costs of IT/yr 33% 23Net income 3,000 3,037Time to payback (years) 1.9Net Income change (%) 1.2

*05-07-01

Finish

Final Program Confirmation with

Pharmacology

Final Program confirmation with LAR

KPFF

SRG Lab Task 37 Task 44 Project Mgt AEI Core Task 41 Task26 H Block Crew Task 23SRG / AEI Technical

AEI Core andSRG Lab HDCCO Costing SRG

Technical KPFFAEI Core and Tech HDCCO Core Code Rev

Consultant Solvent TarterH Block Crew

& TechSRG

LandscapeTele DataDesign Code Rev

Furniture

37. *Reprogram B#15 Shafts

34. *Finalize Pharmacology

Program

33. *Finalize LAR Program

32. *Finalize Bio-Organic Chemistry Program

35. *Finalize Protein Chemistry

Program 20. *Determine Scope of package D including vivarium

changes

45. *Complete all Basement/LAR Drawings

41. *Reprogram bookends B#13 and

B#15

36. *Analyze structural impacts

12. *Complete UG utiliites

25. *Do Central Plant design changes

19. *Determine vertical utilities

22. *Complete catwalk drawings

52. Finalize landscape

26. *Finalize B#13 and B#15

Exiting/architecural H occupancy concept

*Lab and vivarium

Programming Complete

27. *Finalize B#13, 15 Shaft Size &

MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG

Determine Design $/Time

Impact of

23. *Reprogram B#13 and B#15

Exterior Architecture

Bookend Programming

Accepted by Genentech

Notice to proceed on structural changes

Architect program/MEP

oncepts Established By Design

Team

29. *Document lab plan

1. *Redesign main MEP distribution systems

SRG Management AEI Management

Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

5. *Finalize lab & Equipment plans

Task 29

Task 28

30. *Approve Change to Design Contract

21. *Prepare Plan Views for Review of Concept w/City

39. *Finalize MEP distribution and

section

Task4 Task22

Review 80% documents

48. *Develop exiting plan

49. Develop reflected ceiling

plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI

Detailed Design 80 PC Complete

3. Complete Tele Data Design

42. *Develop Execution Strategy

44. *Complete B#14 Officing

Planning

18. *Detailed Lab Program

Documentation

47. *Develop lab DD plan

28. *Determine segregation of lab

and tech space

G accept lab equipment matrix

*Package B structural modifications (CCD3A)

13. *Code Consultants Review Concept for final

city Presentation

14. *HDCCO update Estimate of cost of Program

Review skin changes w/db team

Lab Planning Program Meetings with Pharmacology

Lab planning Program Meeting with Protein Chemistry

BMS Controls Meetings (Weekly)

Lab Planning Program meeting with Bio Organic 80% Drawing Review

Tele Data Coordination MeetingsSteel Detailing Meetings

Genentech 80% Detailed Design Review

Final Program Confirmation with Officing

Weekly Coordination

MeetingLab Planning Program Meetings with Directors

50. Designate size, location of 13 MEP, teledata rooms

54. KPFF design stairs for 13/1438. *SRG

Reprogram 13/14 interface, exiting,

stairs

43. *Changes in Steel Forwarded to Steel

Detailers

46. *RA Furnture Concept Complete

MEP, Teledata room design

*Design Budget & Schedule for Changes

Approved

*Notice to proceed with detailed design

24. *Complete B13,4 H block occupancy

requirements on MEP systems

17. *Risick reprogram solvent

distribution and waste

Issue 80% MEP CDs

(20) Incorporate 80% MEP review

comments

(19) Genentech review 80% drawings

53. Incorporate comments, complete

Architectural detail

2. Initial redesign MEP branch lateral distribution

G accept 13/14

Interface

*City Accept exiting

*Package C skin

modifications

55. KPFF design stairs for 15/14

40. *SRG Reprogram 15/14 interface, exiting,

stairs

B13 MEP HVAC, conduit, piping mains

completed

MEP 80% Review comments incorporated

Package D and UG addendum issued:

underground utilities, vivarium catwalk

10. Draft Alternate means

15. Jeff reprogram HMIS

(3) *AEI design MEP HVAC, Conduit & piping mains B13

16. *HDCCO Determine Schedule Impact

City Approval of Alternate Means

for Program

8. Review Alternate Means w/impact on LEL

and LFFH

(21-4) Finalize MEP Details, update specs and p&ID's

(8) *Revise MEP loads, MEP

Equipment schedules finalized

(13,15,16) MEP specs, P&ID's, control sequences

Work Process

Meetings

(6) Coord B13 MEP floor section

4. complete all Interior Architcture

*Cal OSHA Recommend Determination of LFFH

51. Designate size, location of 14 MEP, teledata rooms G accept

15/14 Interface

*Accept project scope:budget by Genentech

*City Approval of H Concept

*Exterior Programming

Accepted by Genentech

*Turnover lab and vivarium DD plan

to AEI

Object AttributeRequirement Relationship Requirement

Predicted value

Observed value -2 -1 0 1 2

ProductProduct Scope Product Scope . Building Spaces includes -Project GoalsProject Goal . Capacity (people) >= 60 - ?oProject Goal . Cost (M$) = 70 - ?o

BuildingGoal . Net Energy Use (K-BTU/ft2) <= 250 - ?o

BuildingGoal . Quality conformance (%) >= 12 - ?o

Organization Scope Organization Scope . Actors includes - -Organization GoalsOrganization Goal . Predicted . Cost (K$) - <= - ?o

OrganizationGoal . Observed . Response Latency (days) 3 <= - ?o

OrganizationGoal . Predicted . Peak Backlog (days) 3 <= - ?o

OrganizationGoal . Predicted . rework (FTE-days) - <= - ?o

ProcessProcess GoalsProcess Goal . Peak Quality Risk < 0.50 - -

ProcessGoal . Schedule Growth (months) < - ?o

Process Goal . Completion Date <= 1/1/09 - ?oProcess Task . Action: Object Process Task . Design: Actor Actor that designsProcess Task . Predict: Actor Actor that predicts

Process Task . Assess: Actor Actor that assessesProcess Task . Build: Actor Actor that builds

Function Product Behavior

Organization

Qualitative Threshhold values


Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013

2

Overview

Session Goals

Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE):

Develop, show and explain the product, organization, process, POP and 4D models as well as analyses of each and recommendations for management based on the design exercise – collaboratively and quickly



3

Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) Background

Given • Objective = Rapid, effective design

“extreme collaboration” (~1 week) • Excellent VDC software • Collocated team • iRoom • Good generic VDC project definition

templates • SD (DD) phase focus

Performance change

XC

Goo

dtra

ditio

nal

Latency(secs)

0200004000060000

Latency (secs)

Duration (days)

XC

Good traditional

050

100150200250300

Duration



4

The big ideas of ICE

• The Big Ideas: • Exceptional performance, e.g., Team-X at NASA-JPL • It works because it achieves exceptionally short

information latency and short task durations, reliably. • Multiple factors enable ICE to work.



5

Goals of this design session: Project Definition (v)

Define: • What each of the teams expects to deliver • What they expect from the other team members • How can individuals coordinate their respective and collective scopes • How team members know how work is progressing • How team members know when (pre)construction is completed • What work resources and methods can be used for (pre)construction

work • What resources and work methods will be used for the (pre)construction



6


Define: • What each of the teams expects to deliver (plans, commitments) • What they expect from the other team members (commitments) • How can individuals coordinate their respective and collective scopes

(coordination commitments) • How team members know how work is progressing (risks; measurable

process performance metrics) • How team members know when (pre)construction is completed

(measurable outcomes) • What work resources and methods can be used for (pre)construction

work (controllable factors) • What resources and work methods will be used for the (pre)construction

(commitments)



7


For the product, organization and process, project definition clarifies and aligns: • Functional objectives – what project stakeholders want –

– Specific deliverables, e.g., spaces, systems – Conforming and highly reliable safety, schedule, quality and cost

• Scope – “forms” you create -- periodic design and construction deliverables, including: designs of the – Product (~weekly or daily) – to update objectives, designed scope,

predicted and measured behaviors – Organization – groups of people to do tasks that work on the design – Process (daily work) – tasks to design and manage, procure, fabricate,

deliver, construct and inspect • Behaviors – what you predict and what you did – predict and measure

performance of designed scope – With respect to specific stakeholder objectives – Using methods of VDC, Integrated Project Delivery, Lean and Sustainable

development



Potential value of VDC

• Better project or corporate performance (measurably) – Suggests need for ~weekly

performance data: specify >=2 metrics each for P, O, P

• Better clarity of decision processes, for – Decision-makers – Execution team – Executive team

• Better plans and clear commitments for working team

• ↓Rework; ↓Work effort ↑Profitability, ↑Business

VDC methods: • Models: Product (3/4D),

organization (commitments), process (plan, schedule)

• Collaboration methods: ICE • Analyses (model-based): Clash,

Structure, QTO, cost, energy, …

• Metrics: Outcome, process, controllable factors

(c) 2013

8



Product – Organization – Process (POP) Model format:

(c) 2013

9



10

Process of Project Definition

• Build VDC project definition templates as a stakeholder team • Set functions (objectives) of Product, Organization, Process • Design form or scope of Product, Organization, Process • Identify project behaviors and define methods to predict,

assess and observe them



11

Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) vs. Building Information Modeling (BIM)

VDC BIM



12

Integrated Concurrent Engineering at JPL (ICE)

Properties • Collocated Organization (Closed Knowledge Network) • Excellent Technical Infrastructure • Formal Objective Metrics • Informal Process and Culture

Photo thanks to JPL



13

Integrated Concurrent Engineering at CIFE

Integrated Collaborative Engineering (ICE) at CIFE • Collocated Organization (Closed Knowledge Network) • Excellent Technical Infrastructure • Formal Objective Metrics • Informal Process and Culture



14

Without Integrated Concurrent Engineering

Source: @ammunition group: http://twitpic.com/5xs1vy

http://twitpic.com/5xs1vy



15

Observations

ICE at NASA-JPL characteristics • Organization: Multiple stations (~18) • Process: careful design • Technology:

– Multiple shared display screens – Shared database (Icemaker)



16

Coordination Latency is the fundamental performance metric for knowledge work

• Response latency = Time from a designer posing a question to receipt of a useful answer

• Decision latency = Time from receiving useful information to making a decision with it

• Good engineering practice for both: 2 days – weeks typical

• Why it is important: non value-adding time • Measurable ICE Objective for latency: minutes,

reliably – For and as assessed by all intended stakeholders



17

Simple analysis of Latency

Traditional • Project requires 100 “queries” per

engineer @ Latency = 2 days (good!)

100 modeling, analysis, meeting “tasks” @ task durations < 2 days

Project duration ~ 200 calendar days (typical)

Latency paces schedule (typical) Not direct work

ICE (Team-X) • Project requires 100 “queries” per

engineer @ Latency = 1 minute

100 modeling, analysis, sidebar “tasks” @ task durations ~8 minutes

Project duration ~ 2 calendar days (Team-X)

Direct work (modeling + analysis + documentation) paces schedule (Team-X), Not coordination latency



18

ICE requires latency management

• Latency extends schedules – Interdependent tasks have incessant information requests – Requests have response delays (latency) – Latency adds no value, measures collaborative waste

• Integrated Concurrent Engineering dramatically cuts time and latency

– Reduces latency from days to minutes – Direct work tasks must run in minutes – Enables radically decreased project duration – Researchers, practitioners report improved cost, quality – Requires high reliability (> 99%) latency: one major latency

source jeopardizes project success – New organizational form



How ICE (Team-X) works

Manages: 1. Duration of direct work tasks

– Model, describe, predict, explain, evaluate, generate alternatives, decide

– Requires highly skilled engineers with excellent tools that they know well and culture that provides good enough answers

2. Coordination Latency – Time for a designer to obtain

usable information – Requires many enabling factors

Supports both: 1. Associative (divergent) thinking

– Many options, intuitive, including unique idea

Fluency (lots of options), Flexibility (different kinds), Original (at least one)

2. Analytical (convergent) thinking data, prediction, analysis, evaluation and recommendations that believably support decision-making – Actionable

(c) 2013

19



Ling on “Taking for grantedness” [1]

• We take some things for granted – Calendar, clocks (and time and time zones), cell phones – We make (generally similar) assumptions about what we will

(and expect others to do) to use things that we take for granted

• Ling’s steps toward “taking for grantedness” 1. Diffusion 2. Legitimization 3. Social ecology 4. Reciprocal expectations

[1] Taking for grantedness: The Embedding of Mobil Communication Into Society, Rich Ling, MIT Press, 2013

(c) 2011

20



Implications of “taking ICE for granted”

• Implications of “taking ICE for granted” 1. Diffusion – Professional development to bring ICE,

BIM and metrics methods to the team 2. Legitimization

• Leadership to bring the method into practice • Early successes to create demand to use it

3. Social ecology – fit ICE into the organization and the project development process: e.g., number of concurrent project assignments

4. Reciprocal expectations of participants

(c) 2011

21



Implications of “taking ICE for granted”

4. Reciprocal expectations of participants: • Safety: participants feel that it is “ok” to participate

actively • Session attendance: invitations, attendance • Session homework: participant level of preparation for

sessions • Support for in-session availability of and change of BIMs,

prediction tools, metrics and collaboration technologies • Latency during and outside of sessions • Decision stickiness • Rules of engagement and conflict management in ICE

sessions

(c) 2011

22



Model LOD

All functionsBIM element

function - primaryType of BIM content BIM elements

BIM Element Level of detail (LOD) - AIA

Level of detail LOD) -

comments

Due date of next BIM

version

BIM content conforms to

spec [Yes/No]Comment

Other

A+

A

B

Organization

Process

Product

BIM (VDC project model) Content Specification

Methods to enable a project to “take ICE for granted”

• Templates – ICE pre-plan

– Operations agreement

– BIM (VDC project model) Content

Specification

– Deliverables

– Task and coordination commitments

(c) 2011

23

Problems Outcomes Resources

Problems for session to focus on

Desired outcomes

Intended Participants

Participant discipline

Pre-session assignments

Member of pre-plan

team (yes/no)

Role in ICE session

Member of post-

session wrapup

team (yes/no)

Agenda itemsOutcome intent

met? (Yes/Partial/No)

Meeting space,

technologies, models, tools

ICE pre-plan

Participants Agenda

Item Agreement Agreement detailsFrequency: Time: Agenda (Attached?):Format: (Physical + Video Conference, ..)Location:Frequency: Time: Agenda (Attached?):Format: Location: Decision process: Conflict resolution process: Veto possibility: Commitments: Measurable process objectives:

Resources Needed

ICE Sessions

Meetings

Decision Making ProcessGround Rules

Operations Agreement

Planned deliverables

Responsible team, individuals

Receiving team Due dateDue date

met (yes/no)?

Expected LOD Comments

Deliverables

Task Priority Short descriptionResponsible

team

Budget (FTE-

hours)

Coordination dependent

team(s)

Approval team

Due dateDone on-

timeComments/ model

image(s)

Commitments - example



Methods to enable a project to “take ICE for granted”

• Target values and performance metrics: – Intended stakeholder timely and meaningful engagement in ICE

sessions – Latency: response and decision – Quality, cost, schedule, safety process and outcome

performance – Individual and team preparation for sessions

(c) 2011

24



25

Use ICE for Target value design for cost, schedule, energy, …

• Generate and evaluate many design options w/ICE

• Select target cost • Rapid design

method: PIDO http://network.modefrontier.eu/documentation/pido.html

Value

Cost Low High

Assessed project value and predicted cost of many options

+ ∆

- ∆

Linear value curve

Wide design option space

http://network.modefrontier.eu/documentation/pido.html





26



• Select target cost Value

Cost Low High

Assessed project value and predicted cost of many options

+ ∆

- ∆

Non-Linear value curve



27



• Select target schedule Value

Schedule Low High

Assessed project value and predicted schedule of many options

+ ∆

- ∆



Use ICE for multi-discipline target value design:

• When a change affects two measures of project success,

–Choose when upside value exceeds downside risk

–E.g., - ∆ cost risk < + ∆ upside schedule

compression value

(c) 2013 28

Value “I can sell this”



29

ICE Methods

Normal Stations • Owner • Product: model functions,

scope, behaviors • Organization: model

functions, scope, behaviors • Process: model functions,

scope, behaviors • Integrated project: POP

model • Facilitator (session leader) • Project manager

Process

• All stations simultaneously develop model inputs

• Coordinate continuously • Assess and evaluate first

design option

• Deliver project: – Definition – Objective assessment – Option evaluation



30

Steps to perform ICE sessions …

• Pre-planning: a few days immediately prior to ICE sessions – Invite a very small set of project principals (2-4) – Do project definition and identify VDC project definition

templates at Level-B with ~10 each of P, O, P elements • Determine the design space to explore in ICE session:

– Invite relevant stakeholders to ICE session – Select modeling and analysis tools and methods

• Assure that facility and intended tools are available

• ICE session: ~3 sessions within one week – Frequent process checks (every ~20 minutes)

• Post-session: a few days immediately following ICE sessions to create formal deliverables



31

When to hold ICE sessions …

• For each major project phase – at least early (concept and schematic), detailed (DD,

CD) and to plan construction • Collaborating with your other stakeholders • Hold a set of about 3 ICE sessions • Build and analyze a project model for the next

phase in enough detail to identify objectives, scope and predicted performance believably



32

Why to hold an ICE session

• Do project definition rapidly and believably – Define functional objectives, scope, behaviors of Project, i.e.,

• Product, Organization, Process • Clearly identify tasks and deliverables for next period (week or month)

– Focus: product element and system(s) served – Who: responsible group, individuals – What: tasks to perform – When: according to broadly reviewed and accepted schedule – How: methods and resources to be used by responsible team(s)

to coordinate, do work and verify work – Context: specific

• risks and uncertainties to address based on broad project review

• coordination tasks to assure success given risks



33

To plan a set of ICE sessions

• Enable effective use of ICE methods – Professional development of potential team members - create

culture, methods, incentives – Implement enabling tools: P, O, P modeling and analysis

applications, display technology, shared database • Plan each set of ICE sessions: Identify

– Objectives and intended deliverables: models, analyses, reports, recommendations, …

– Number of sessions and calendar schedule: typically 2-4 over ~ 1 week

– Intended participants, tasks for each session – Effort and time budgets for use of ICE sessions – Process performance metrics and methods: measured and

assessed quality, schedule, cost



34

ICE deliverables …

• Functions: statement of project objectives for P, O, P • Scope:

– Design of multiple P, O, P options in large design space – P, O, P models for use by next phase

• Behaviors: predicted P, O, P performance • Evaluation of acceptability of options given objectives • Risk assessment and mitigation strategy • Recommendation for new P, O, P design option(s) • Proposed product design, team, schedule and

responsibilities for next phase



ICE vs. traditional meetings in construction

Issue ICE Traditional meetings

Outcome re issue at hand

Resolution Tracking of status

Agenda management Focused on clear, shared agenda

Tangents, pursuit of personal agendas

Description of problem and context

Shared and clear Individual perceptions

Number of options considered

Multiple; consider what-ifs

Focused on agenda of one individual

Supporting technologies

Interactive visual models and analyses

Paper and appeal to understanding of others

35



36

ICE Enabling Factors

(Committed) Organization

(Dynamic) Process (Visual)

Technology Stakeholders Present: (Closed knowledge network)

Processes clear: (low equivocality)

Excellent discipline-specific modeling, visualization tools

Focused design staff: 100% committed in sessions

Processes distinct: High structure independence

Rich communications media

Flat organization structure

Resolve problems in small self-formed groups (Pooled communications)

Integrated database

Egalitarian culture

High goal congruence



Staff survey: Example of how senior management helps

1. I feel that I can challenge people at any level in my organization without fear. 2. I feel I can ask for and receive the resources (time, budget, equipment) I need to solve problems. 3. My Manager/Supervisor makes it easy to speak up when problems arise. 4. My Manager /Supervisor listens to bad news, yet still asks for unrealistic targets. 5. When we present bad news, our Manager/Supervisor repeatedly asks for more information focused on showing that the problem is not as bad as it seems. 6. My Manager/Supervisor encourages us to ask for help outside our organization or the chain of command (e.g., outside our project or work group or next level up) if we need it. 7. I am aware of what to do when a Manager/Supervisor doesn’t respond appropriately to bad news and it needs to be escalated to a higher level. 8. My team uses metrics and processes effectively (e.g., trend program, standard metrics, etc.) to analyze, surface & solve problems. 9. In my organization, we live by our corporate values 10. The formal metrics in my organization often do not convey an accurate picture of performance.

(c) 2013

37



38

Organization Enabling factor: Stakeholders Present: (Closed knowledge network)

• Objective: knowledge and authority always present • Meaning: Requisite knowledge, procedures, options,

and authority are immediately available in the room (almost always)

• Risk factors: sidebars; unanswered sidebars • Team-X Methods:

– Heavy reliance on collaborative design sessions – Designer collocation during sessions – Careful participants selection and training – Pre-plan to identify needed participants



39

Organization Enabling factor: Design staff focus

• Objective: 100% available during meetings • Meaning: Design session participants focus

exclusively on project work during design sessions • Risk factors: Designers have other responsibilities

during design sessions, so team waits for expertise • Team-X Methods:

– Management support of focus – Short sessions enable managers to free valued staff



40

Organization Enabling factor: Hierarchy structure

• Objective: Flat • Meaning: Minimal required decision-making structure

and overhead • Risk factors: Soliciting management approval

challenges short latency • Team-X Methods:

– No managers – Culture of autonomy and respect – One facilitator (session leader)



41

Organization Enabling factor: Egalitarian culture

• Objective: Egalitarian • Meaning: Positions assume empowered decision-

making and low management overhead • Risk factors: Soliciting management approval

challenges short latency • Team-X Methods:

– Culture of autonomy and respect – Careful recruitment – Decisions and decision processes highly visible to all



42

Organization Enabling factor: Goal Congruence

• Objective: Highly congruent • Meaning: participants know and aspire to same goals

and methods • Risk factors: positions debate priorities or methods • Team-X Methods:

– Discuss goals and methods at session start – Facilitator (session leader) attention – Culture of congruence – Analysis and decisions very visible to all



43

Process Enabling factor: Processes clear: (low equivocality)

• Objective: design, coordination and construction processes clear • Meaning: all participants understand and accept procedures,

goals and objectives – Implies that method applies only to well-understood processes

• Risk factors: positions ask for and wait for facilitator (session leader) decisions

• Team-X Methods: • Use only for well-understood processes

– Pre-plan for process clarity – Culture of autonomy – Analysis and decisions very visible to all – Excellent process facilitator (session leader)



44

Process Enabling factor: Processes distinct: (High structure independence)

• Objective: design processes clearly separated • Meaning: Design tasks are distinct, positions all

understand their responsibilities and can proceed with minimal management oversight

• Risk factors: positions solicit or wait for facilitator (session leader) decisions

• Team-X Methods: – Use only for projects that allow independence – Pre-plan for independence – Staff selection and training – Culture of autonomy – Analysis and decisions very visible to all



45

Process Enabling factor: Resolve problems in small self-formed groups (Pooled communications)

• Objective: Pooled communications • Meaning: Participants resolve problems in small self-

formed groups • Risk factors: Formal or inflexible coordination

requirements • Team-X Methods:

– Collocation – Shared project (POP) model – Shared projection screens – Sidebar culture



46

Technology Enabling factor: Modeling, Visualization Tools

• Objective: Excellent • Meaning: Discipline-specific tools allow all positions to

do direct work very fast • Risk factors: Manual design activities or poor tools

bottleneck schedule; Other designers fail to understand a model

• Team-X Methods: – Modeling, visualization, analysis and decision support tools

enable all critical path tasks – High team experience – Shared project (POP) model



47

Technology Enabling factor: Communications Media

• Objective: Rich • Meaning: Shared and personal, visual, multi-

disciplinary, showing functional requirements, design choices and predicted behaviors

• Risk factors: Slow process to describe models, explain rationale, evaluate choices, make predictions, create alternatives

• Team-X Methods: – Mature modeling and analysis tools – Personal workstations – Shared “iRoom” displays



48

Technology Enabling factor: Shared Project Database

• Objective: Integrated • Meaning: Discipline-specific models all access and

store shared data easily • Risk factors: data reentry, missing shared data • Team-X Methods:

– Develop good shared generic (POP) model ontology – Applications have developed uniform semantics for shared

data – Designated position assures consistency



Assessment of status of ICE Enabling Factors

(c) 2013

49

(Committed) Organization

(Dynamic) Process (Visual) Technology

Stakeholders Present: Processes clear: (low equivocality):

Excellent discipline-specific modeling, visualization tools:

Focused design staff: 100% committed in sessions:

Processes distinct: Rich communications media:

Flat organization structure:

Resolve problems in small self-formed groups:

Integrated database:

Egalitarian culture

High goal congruence:



50

ICE Enabling factors: so what?

• Necessity: excellent ICE performance requires all factors to work well

• Sufficiency: No one factor suffices • Early evidence (Stanford classes) of necessity,

sufficiency of these factors (from observations or theoretically-founded simulation)

• Process and team experience are crucial, so understanding factors may help understand how to change Team-X to – Make specific improvements – Replicate Team-X (in less than 10 years it to create it)



51

Goals of ICE sessions session: Project Definition (v)

Define: • What each of the teams expects to deliver (plans, commitments) • What they expect from the other team members (commitments) • How can individuals coordinate their respective and collective scopes

(coordination commitments) • How team members know how work is progressing (risks; measurable

process performance metrics) • How team members know when (pre)construction is completed

(measurable outcomes) • What work resources and methods can be used for (pre)construction

work (controllable factors) • What resources and work methods will be used for the (pre)construction

(commitments)



Deliverable commitment template - example

(c) 2013

52

Planned deliverable

Deliverable formatResponsible team,

individualsReceiving team Due date

Due date met (y/n)?

Expected LOD Comments

BIM spec for current step

BIM content template (Excel)

Core team BIM architect Mm/dd Top-10 $ elements

BIM reviewBIM content template (Excel)

Review team x 50 PM Mm/dd [1:5] each teamNo team priority yet

Schedule of assets to manage

Excel format BIM author FM manager Mm/dd all rooms > 10 ft2

Next step plan development

Core team PM Mm/ddTask size 2-5 FTE-weeks

Sr Mgt approve next step

email Sr Management PM Mm/dd Yes/no/ buts Decision required

Deliverables Example



Coordination commitment template

Planned coordination

activity

Responsible individuals

Due date

Due date met

(y/n)?

Expected LOD

Comments

(c) 2013

53

Commitment conformance

Time



Controllable factors template - example

(c) 2013

54

Factor Type Factor

Range of options: choice impacts BIM specifications

Constraints Action(s) for this weekAction Taken?

(Yes, Partial, No)

Product Detail of water line in 3DFeatures of size from 1 mm to > 1m

None important Model features size > 20 mm

Product Location of in-water equipmentAdjust both equipment location, water width/depth profile

Size of equipmentmodel equipment located in water this week

Organization Number of BIM authors <1 – many FTEsAdjust author count up and down slowly

Budget BIM author work

Organization Number of BIM reviewers Author team – hundreds Size of BIM review facility Budget BIM reviewer work

Process Construction duration 6 months to 2 yearsNeed to plan prefabrication early to shorten construction period

Get owner preference

Process Size of weekly pre-con tasksOne task for whole team/week to all tasks with > 0.5 FTE-day

Availability of staff to plan, manage schedule

Build short-interval production plan and schedule at feasible LOD

Process Tool used for BIM reviewBIM authoring, BIM review, Navisworks

Training of review team to understand content

Provide and train in best available tool supported within company

Process Invitation list next meetingdo not do it to invite core team + all who might help

Need to do it at least 3 days before meeting

Invite estimator, others x 10 by COB today

ProcessDevelop agenda, purpose, intended outcomes of next meeting

Agenda items: 1 + 2-5 subheadings; purpose set by current project status; outcomes none to schedule and commitment clarity of assigned tasks x 5-10

meeting date; attendee availabilitycreate agenda; coordinate with AV; test technology

Controllable Factors



Metrics Implementation template - example

(c) 2013

55

C: Controllable; P: Process; O: Outcome

Prediction

Name Comment Target value Tolerance: +-∆ How to use in

management Source of data Type [P, O]

Stakeholders who saw data

last week

Collection frequency Objective Weight

Predicted/ measured value (how

you are doing)

Assesed value

M Quality: POE satisfaction wrt program (%) 100 5

Guide commissioning, next job

Client assessment O Owner only Turnover time

+ 6-24 months 40 98 3

E Cost conformance to plan (item actual - predicted/predicted) 100 5 Plan next job Client

assessment O PM only Turnover time 25 1

T Schedule conformance to plan (%) 100 10 Plan next job Client assessment O All on team Turnover time 35 95 3

R Predicted Cost conformance to plan (item actual - predicted/predicted) 100 5 Attention

managementPeriodic project progress report P Subteam only Weekly 15 99 3

I Production schedule conformance to plan (%) 90 10 Attention

managementPeriodic project progress report P Owner only Weekly 10 75 2

CAssessed Quality conformance to plan (% of items with rating >=4 on scale 1:5)

100 10 Attention management

Periodic project progress report P Subteam only Weekly 15 95 3

S Stakeholder participation that is timely and meaningful (%) 90 10

Adjust plan by stakeholder review and assessments

Periodic project stakeholder

surveyP All on team Weekly 10 90 3

EvaluationMetrics

Intent



Assessed status template - example

(c) 2013

56

Comment: Graph shows assessed status of the predicted/measured performance of each metric defined in Metrics template

Managerial significance of this assessed metrics status graph: Most metrics have very good predicted performance for this design version. Team should focus attention on high risk areas of cost and production schedule conformance.

Home

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Quality: POE satisfaction wrtprogram (%)

Cost conformance to plan (itemactual - predicted/predicted)

Schedule conformance to plan(%)

Predicted Cost conformance toplan (item actual -

predicted/predicted)

Production scheduleconformance to plan (%)

Assessed Quality conformanceto plan (% of items with rating

>=4 on scale 1:5)Stakeholder participation that is

timely and meaningful (%)

Latency: % responses received<= 1 day

Field RFIs (count)

Fraction of prefab assembliesthat take <=1 day to install (%)

Personal preparation: Faction ofparticipants that say they

understood modeled designcontent and rationale (%)

Team preparation: Fraction ofparticipants saying that other

team members came preparedto meeting (%)

Assesed value - taken from Metrics Example

Assesed value



Risk template - example

(c) 2013

57

Time

Identified risk

Potential impact of risk

($, time, effort)

Severity: Low,

Medium, High

Parties affected by

risk

Individuals responsible for

mitigating design, approval

Earliest analysis/ last responsible

moment dates

Mitigation activity

Resolution date met (Yes/No)?

Comments

BIM ready partner teams available

Dramatic schedule High

Client Early partner relationship team

Day-1/ end of concept phase

BIM training for partner staff

Best to set expectat-ions early

Sea level riseCosts/ curtailed operations

Medium Operations Concept design team

Day-1/ end of Concept Dikes 100-year risk

Goverment plan OK

Delay open day Medium Operations Core group Day-1/ facility

open

Engage government review early

Ongoing risk

Paint spec unclear or inappropriate

Cost: use contingency; schedule delay

LowClient Core group Day-1/ facility

open

Vet across different examples

Risks - Example



To read more

• Section Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) supports VDC – Pp 34-38 in VDC recommended reading – "Virtual Design and Construction: Themes, Case Studies and

Implementation Suggestions," CIFE working Paper #97, 2011.

(c) 2013

58

http://cife.stanford.edu/online.publications/WP097.pdf



ORID: Focused Conversation and Analysis

Objective What do you recall

seeing?

Reflective Positive

What do you feel positive about?

Reflective Negative

What do you find negative?

Interpretive What sense do you

make of it?

Decisional What agreements can be made now?

(c) 2013

59



60

Overview

Session Objectives

Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE):

Develop, show and explain the product, organization, process, POP and 4D models as well as analyses of each and recommendations for management based on the design exercise – collaboratively and quickly

integrated concurrent engineering - stanford universitykunz/chalmers/w2iceoverview.pdf ·...

Documents