Post on 06-Dec-2014
description
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 1
The Application of Success Probabilities, Success Driven Project Management, and Some Critical Chain ConceptsTo the Oil & Gas Industry in Brazil
Russell D. Archibald, USAVladimir Liberzon, Russia
Peter Berndt de Souza Mello, Brazil
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 2
Presentation Outline The Need to Manage Uncertainties Success Driven Project Management/SDPM
Methodology Unique Features of SDPM Comparison with Critical Chain Monte Carlo versus using 3 point
estimates Experience to date in Brazil Conclusions
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 3
THE NEED FOR MANAGING UNCERTAINTIES, RISKS, & RESOURCE
RESTRICTIONS IN PROJECTS
These occur in all complex projects The need is to identify, monitor and
control risks and resources They must be reflected in plans &
schedules Methods to accomplish this developed in
Russia are now being applied in Brazil (and 21 other countries
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 4
Success Driven Project Management (SDPM)
Planning Stage: Calculate finish dates & costs with the
required probabilities of their successful
achievement
Determine the Resource Critical Path/RCP
Set target dates, costs & other restrictions
Calculate success probabilities
Determine contingency reserves
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 5
Success Driven Project Management (SDPM)
Execution and Control: Calculate current probabilities of
achieving goals
Track success probability trends
Manage contingency reserves
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 6
Resource Critical Path/RCP
True (resource) critical path must reflect ALL schedule constraints: resource, finance, supply, calendar, & imposed dates
All constraints must be considered in both forward & backward passes
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 7
Success Probability
1. System forecasts resulting required resources & contingency reserves based on user defined acceptable probability of success to meet specific scope, schedule & cost targets
2. System calculates the probability of meeting imposed targets (success probabilities)
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 8
Eight Integration Methods Used
1. Systematic scope definition (several indentured structures/WBS)
2. Network planning (CPM/PDM)3. Resources:
• Consumable, renewable, utilized & produced• Units, teams/crews, interchangeable units or
crews• Assigned to project activities• Constraints in both forward & backward
passes
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 9
Eight Integration Methods (Cont’d)
4. Activity durations calculated: scope or volume ÷ rate using range estimates with or without Monte Carlo
5. True (resource) critical path calculated:• Logical & schedule constraints• Resource, financial & supply limitations in
both the forward and backward passes
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 10
Eight Integration Methods (Cont’d)
6. Risk & uncertainties simulated: probability distribution for main project results (project & its main phases finish dates, costs, resource requirements)
7. Actuals reported & compared, contingency reserves tracked
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 11
Eight Integration Methods (Cont’d)
8. Current probabilities of success calculated and trends determined for:
Schedules Costs Resources
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 12
Methods Unique to SDPM
• Multiple breakdown structures• Resource information & analysis• Activity duration calculated or estimated• Resource critical path, resource floats, &
resource contingency reserves• Risk simulation & success probability
analysis• Success probability trends predicted and
tracked
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 13
SDPM versus CCM Resource Critical Path:
All schedule constraints Activity & resource
assignment reserves Total floats: forward &
backward passes Different ‘drum
resources’ for various project phases
Critical Chain: One ‘schedule drum
resource’ defines the ‘schedule constraint’ and one ‘critical chain’
Resource-leveled schedule set first, then determine the ‘critical chain’
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 14
SDPM versus CCM (cont’d) Many potential RCPs
and paths with small floats may exist
‘Feeding buffers’ not necessary:
Don’t ‘protect’ any chain/path
Project time and resource buffers, yes: ‘contingency reserves’
CC is the only single sequence that shall not change during project execution
‘Feeding buffers’ may postpone planned dates, creating holes in CC
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 15
SDPM versus CCM (cont’d) Risk Evaluation & Prediction Monte Carlo or
range estimates Predict user
defined success probabilities to meet targets
Project buffers Recommend
using optimistic schedule dates
CCPM recommends using 50% probability duration, all extra time at end of CC: chain buffer
CC “shall never change”
CC says nothing about cost!
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 16
SDPM versus CCM (cont’d) Progress Evaluation & Decision Making Project
performance and buffer usage monitored by trends in success probabilities
Up = good New risks are
included as they occur
Buffer usage estimated qualitatively
Approach is linear No quantification Nothing on cost
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 17
SDPM versus CCM (cont’d) Project Portfolio Management Planned as one
large project Projects in Portfolio
may have different priorities for resource allocation
Simulate performance using portfolio success prob. trends
Projects in a portfolio shall be pipelined to avoid multi-tasking
Priorities not discussed
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 18
SDPM versus CCM (cont’d) Periodic Schedule & Cost Performance Evaluation SDPM approach
based on regular recalculations of project and portfolio schedules, costs, and success probabilities and their trends
Recalculations shall be minimized
Regular adjustment of schedule is “firefighting”
“People are free to finish the work as soon as possible”
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 19
MC vs Using 3 Estimates: Inputs
Monte Carlo: 3 estimates
made, prob. distributions assumed
Risk events ID’d, prob. Estimated
Conditional links may be used
Using 3 Estimates: 3 estimates
made, durations and costs
Opt. 10% Most prob. Pess. 90%
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 20
MC vs Using 3 Estimates: Process Methods Project execution
simulated many times, activity durations and risk events via random number generator
Prob. curve set by number of cases for each duration
3 scenarios calculated with res. leveling & budgeting
Prob. distr. set via predetermined curve
Any reasonable shape may be used
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 21
MC vs Using 3 Estimates: Completion Date Project finish date
set to match desired probability under the defined distribution curve
The same
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 22
MC vs Using 3 Estimates: Progress Evaluation Repeat process
periodically, plot success prob. Trends Rising trend=good Falling trend=bad
The same
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 23
MC vs Using 3 Estimates: Pro More accurate Can show
complex curves with more than one max
Fast and precise Distribution may
not be correct but results are repeatable, with consistent errors
Success prob. trend analysis is accurate
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 24
MC vs Using 3 Estimates: Cons Time consuming If activities are
performed by same resources, results are not accurate
Corrective actions are not reflected in the simulations; results not accurate
Estimations are less accurate
Merge bias: see next slides
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 25
MC vs Using 3 Estimates: Using a Summary Model For large projects
people sometimes use a summary network
This loses links between activities, cannot simulate resources properly, produces low accuracy
Summary networks not required
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 26
MC vs Using 3 Estimates: Merge Bias Question Exists when using
summary models Many paths
merging at the end Merge bias within
summary tasks not considered
Corrective actions cannot be modeled
Merge bias inside the project is ignored
Merge bias within a portfolio is considered
Not important: success probability trends are useful and accurate
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 27
The Russian Approach to Project Planning
Soviet Union roots Universal coding system “Scientific Work Organization” Use of norms and standards Emphasis on resource planning
and schedule optimization
Is this the real critical chain ?(Photo in Amazon, enjoying a couple of days off the Urucu/Manaus Project – Peter Mello,
2007)
28
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 29
Experience to Date:SDPM & RCP in Brazil First known application of SDPM
happened at Urucu/Manaus Pipeline in October 2006 The project had started in 2004 and was
facing major delays due to a segmented view of the project, with several separated set of schedules for different regions (geographic division) and different areas (scope, costs, logistics and supplies).
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 30
Experience to Date:SDPM & RCP in Brazil First known application of SDPM happened
at Urucu/Manaus Pipeline in October 2006 An integrated schedule and the use of
simulations with resource restrictions helped Petrobras to criticize and complement new contractors’ plans for project recovery, with significant gains in productivity.
Subprojects started in 2007 included requests to new contractors to apply lessons learned with the use of RCP [PMI Global 2007, Cancún]
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 31
Slowing Down to Speed Up !!
What is expected with the adoption of Success Driven Project Management is the ability to identify what phases of the project should be delayed to make critical resources available to other critical phases, thus expanding the productivity in areas of greater working dependencies with other teams.
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 32
Fragnets
Fragnets are modeled phases of the project that are carefully planned to be applied to the whole project.
One example is the modeling of “one km of pipeline”
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 33
Fragnets
By using automated scheduling optimization and simulation, activities in each fragnet are reorganized to the best sequence to increase global production.
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 34
Fragnets
Schedule optimization
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 35
Fragnets
800 meters per day800 meters per day 1150 meters per day1150 meters per day
Slow down
Speed up
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 36
Scheduling optimizationin a few words
Almost any network of activities can be improved if we simply try the alternatives. Jane takes 4 days to write a quality plan
and 2 days to write a communication plan for the project.
If both plans are reviewed by her boss, who spends 3 days for each document, how long does this project take ?
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 37
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 38
9 DAYS
10 DAYS
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 39
SDPM is expanding in Brazil
STD is an engineering company developing several projects around Brazil for oil & gas. Starting October 2007, their project managers have been receiving training in PM based on PMI best practices and SDPM application concepts. A successful five day planning project for a hot-swap in a gas
pressure reduction city-gate proved the importance of simulating schedules with corrective actions (optimistic x probable x pessimistic). After that training, all their new projects undergo a new planning phase with detailed scheduling never applied in their projects before.
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 40
SDPM is expanding in Brazil
Three new projects have started in January 2008. The average size of each of these projects is twice the size of the projects they had during 2006/2007.
There are a total of 22 on-going projects with a total value of R$ 35 million (US$20.7 million) (61% of the company’s portfolio)
The three new projects surpass a total value ofR$ 22 million (US$13 million) (39% of the company’s portfolio)
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 41
SDPM is expanding in Brazil
Several shared resources are still the same as the ones available for previous projects, but scheduling based in the Eight Integration Steps of SDPM has permitted portfolio resource planning with significant cost reduction.
All new projects are planned under SDPM recommendation
All on-going projects are being re-evaluated to guarantee portfolio resource sharing
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 42
SDPM is expanding in Brazil
Before SDPM: Schedules had an average of 5 levels of detailing in the WBS and less than 2,000 tasks.
After SDPM: Schedules have multiple WBS, sometimes with over 9 levels
of detailing and accurate resource planning. A new “project interface phase” was introduced to reflect
activities under the responsibility of the customer and subcontractors (to guarantee immediate analysis of project deviations due to external dependencies).
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 43
SDPM is expanding in Brazil
After SDPM: Acquisition of parts are planned using fragnets with
estimates for early and late deliveries. A “top-management summary schedule” with an average
of 30-50 control points is used by the PMO and customer to follow project progress.
Detailed planning now surpasses 15,000 activities Activities from many functional areas are now included in
the planning for resource critical path analysis.
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 44
Three point estimates
Most Probable applied
Pessimistic applied
Most Probable Planning
Pessimistic
Planning
Optimistic
Planning
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 45
Optimistic with Critical Schedule Calculated
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 46
Success Probability
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA
TipicalSchedul
eThe real world
Bufferprotectio
n
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 47
Success Probability – The paradox
As Project Managers, we want all the time and resources made available (pessimistic readiness) Over-protected projects aren’t cost effective
and we cannot afford having results behind our competitors.
Unprotected projects (single estimate) will simply take longer and be more expensive than planned, leading us to unpredictable results.
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 48
Success Probability – The paradox
As Project Managers, we want all the time and resources made available (pessimistic readiness) Over protected projects aren’t cost effective
and we cannot afford having results after our competitors.
Unprotected projects (single estimate) will simply take longer and be more expensive than planned.
SDPM will create calculated critical schedules that willestablish the necessary balance between
cost & time effectiveness and the expected successprobability, according to goals agreed with
stakeholders.
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 49
Conclusions
1. Effective project planning and scheduling requires the identification of the Resource Critical Path (as defined in this paper)
2. Risk management and success probability trend analysis must be integrated into daily work of project planning, scheduling, and controlling
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 50
Conclusions (Cont’d)
3. PM maturity must be measured for PM processes and also available data banks
4. Progress evaluation through success prob. trend analysis is effective using 3 estimate approach; merge bias is not important
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 51
Conclusions (Cont’d)
5. Monte Carlo approach has practical limitations and unknown inaccuracies when applied to summary networks
6. RCP and SDPM are proving to be practical and effective in the field in Brazil
7. Western PM software vendors should include resource constraints in both forward and backward passes for network analysis
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 52
A Few Useful Links
http://www2.petrobras.com.br/ingles/index.asp http://www.spiderproject.com.br [go to ‘seminars’] http://www.spiderproject.ru/aboutus_e.php http://www.russarchibald.com/ [go to ‘author>recent papers’] to
download this present paper plus: Liberzon, Vladimir, and Russell D. Archibald, “From Russia with Love: Truly
Integrated Project Scope, Schedule, Resource and Risk Information,” PMI World Congress- The Hague, May 24-26, 2003;
Archibald, Russell D., Peter Berndt de Souza Mello, & Jefferson Guimarães, “The Application of SDPM, Critical Chain and Portfolio Project Management Principles to the Construction of the 670 km Urucu/Manaus (Petrobras) Pipeline,” PMI World Congress-Latin America, Cancun, MX, Nov. 12-14 2007
Russell ArchibaldPrincipal - Archibald Associates, USA/Mexico russell_archibald@yahoo.com
Vladimir Liberzon General Director, Spider Project Team, Russia
"Vladimir Liberzon" <spider@mail.cnt.ru>
Peter Berndt de Souza MelloDirector - X25 Treinamento e Consultoria, Brazilpeter.mello@x25.com.br
PMI COS 5th Conference, May 4-7 2008, Chicago
USA 54