Acumen Fuse World Tour 2012

// Acumen Fuse World Tour

2012

// World Tour Overview Acumen Fuse

◦  The tour ◦  10 countries: 24 locations

◦  Fuse & Fuse 360

◦  Fuse 3.1 launch ◦  Acumen Cloud™, New Schedule Cleanser™; New

forensics, enhanced P6 integration

// Dr. Dan Patterson, PMP

◦  Legacy:

◦  20 years of PPM experience

◦  WelcomHome, WelcomRisk, TerraFirma

◦  Pertmaster

◦  Thought Leader:

◦  Project analytics

◦  Project Risk analysis

◦  S1>S5™ schedule maturity framework

◦  Founder of Acumen, inventor of Fuse

President and CEO, Acumen

// Acumen

◦  Project Management Software Company

◦  Insight into challenges & use of

analytics to overcome them

◦  Core Concepts:

1.  Project success requires a sound plan

2.  Planning requires risk consideration

Proven Project Analytics

Product Offerings

Risk Workshops

Acumen Fuse®

Software Training

Realistic Scheduling

Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

// Schedule Maturity Framework Acumen S1 > S5

S1 •  Schedule Basis • Owner/contractor schedule

S2 • Cri/qued Schedule •  Ensure structural integrity

S3 • Risk-‐Adjusted Schedule • Account for risk/uncertainty

S4 • Op/mized Target Scenarios •  Schedule accelera>on

S5 •  Team Validated Scenario • Buy-‐in on op>miza>on 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Chan

ce of S

ucess

Maturity Level

Measure quality through the Fuse Schedule Index™

// Case Studies

1.  Owner/contractor alignment [S1>S2]

2.  Bidding competitiveness [S1>S2]

3.  Acceleration/risk reduction [S3>S5]

4.  Performance tracking

5.  Dispute resolution

6.  Portfolio analysis

The benefits of Fuse

May 16, 2012

Subcontractors Contractors

Joint Venture 3rd Party Assessors

Owners

•  All leads to: •  More realistic, achievable plans

•  Many X faster/easier than manual approach

// Acumen Fuse Platform

◦  Fuse: analytics platform

◦  Improves schedule quality

◦  Insight into performance

◦  Fuse 360: goal-based acceleration

◦  Schedule Acceleration

◦  Decision-support

Enterprise Project Analysis

May 16, 2012

Metric Analyzer

Logic Analyzer

Forensic Analyzer

Schedule Cleanser

Schedule Accelerator

// Measuring Schedule Quality The Fuse Schedule Index™

// Better Planning Drives Project Success Proven Correlation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

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

Prob

ability of O

n-‐Time Co

mple/

on

Fuse Schedule Index™

// Metric Analysis

Slice & Dice

May 16, 2012

Benefit:

" Pinpoint shortcomings

" Project characteristics

" Slice and dice

About:

" 300+ metrics

" Percentage: context

" Threshold: acceptability

// Types of Project Metrics

Schedule

• Logic • Float • Dura>on

Cost

• Overrun • Capacity • Burn rates

Performance

• Status • Completed • Delayed

Characteris>cs

• Level of detail • Constrained • Riding Data Date

Earned Value

• CPI/SPI • Trending • Earned schedule

Risk

• Exposure • Hot spots • Hidden paths

Fuse Metric Libraries

•  Project management best practices

•  Industry/corporate standards: PMI, AACE, NDIA

•  Fuse-specific: Logic Density™, Hotspot, Redundancy

•  Compliance: DCMA 14 Point, DoD

•  Create your own!

// Customizable Metrics Fuse Metric Editor

// Acumen-Specific Metrics

Logic Density™ • Measure of complexity/completeness

Logic Hotspot™ • Timely start?

Float Ra>o™ • Degree of flexibility per day of work

Redundancy Index™ • Non-‐needed logic

Advanced Project Insight

Finish Compliance™ • Accurate measure of performance

Insufficient Detail™ • Ac>vity V project dura>on

Milestone Ra>o™ • Detail V repor>ng

Broad Risk Range • Check for erroneous risk input

// Logic Density™

◦  Measure of complexity & soundness

◦  Dual-band threshold: 2 to 6…

◦  Determine Logic Hotspots™ in schedule

◦  Trending: determine timing of shortcomings

Integrity Check

More definition

needed

// Fuse Schedule Cleanser™ Actionable Insight

// Project Forensics Insight into Schedule Cleanse

May 16, 2012

16

// Claims Analysis

◦  Advanced forensics

◦  Fuse gives meaning to the

impact of changes

◦  Pinpoints changes to critical/

driving path

◦  Every single project attribute

can be checked

◦  Calendar definition changes

Insight into project variances

May 16, 2012

// Reporting

Executive Briefing!•  Summary of

analysis results!

Analyst Report!•  To do list!

Dashboard!•  Interactive

charts & graphs"

API & Custom Reports"•  Automation

of existing reports"

Publish Analysis Results

May 16, 2012

// Integration

Schedule, Cost, Risk, Performance, EV

May 16, 2012

MS Project

P3/P6

Open Plan

Asta Cobra Prism G2

PRA

Excel/XML

Na>ve tool not required

// Case Study #1

•  Houston-based oil/gas owner

•  Objective:

•  More on-time completion for projects over $250MM

•  Encourage more mature contractor schedules

•  Overcome “brain drain” in scheduling

•  How achieved:

•  Mandated contractor Fuse Schedule Index of 75+

•  Gave contractor opportunity to self-assess

Owner/contractor Alignment

// Case Study #1

◦  Metric analysis view

◦  Slice and dice analysis

◦  Executive briefing and Analyst reporting

◦  Logic analysis

◦  Schedule cleanser™

◦  Score comparison

◦  Forensic analyzer

◦  Executive dashboard

◦  Exporting fixed schedule

Fuse Modules

// Fuse Demo

// Case Study #1

•  Outcome:

•  Contractor achieved 75+ Fuse Schedule Index

•  Schedule was more realistic

•  Schedule was earlier!

•  Owner gained confidence in the contractor

•  Better collaboration & alignment between stakeholders

Owner/contractor Alignment

// Acumen Cloud™

◦  Communitized benchmarking

◦  Means of determining:

◦  Schedule quality?

◦  How this ranks with other projects?

◦  How does this align our project for on-time completion?

◦  100% anonymous, secure (SSL)

◦  Continuously getting more intelligent

◦  New libraries can be pushed to Fuse!

Project Benchmarking

// Acumen Cloud™ Architecture

Knowledge Base

Dynamic Cloud Libraries Client-based

analysis Benchmarking

Fuse 3.1

// Acumen Cloud The Fuse Schedule Index™

// Case Study #2

•  EPC bids for a utility turnaround

•  Three competing bidders

•  Objective:

•  Owner wanting to make informed award decision

•  Cheapest? Fastest? Most achievable?

•  How Achieved:

•  Compared schedule, cost, quality metrics

•  Benchmarked using Acumen Cloud™

Bidding Competitiveness

// Case Study #2

◦  Importing multiple scheduling platforms

◦  Timeline view

◦  Cost/duration comparison

◦  Driving logic analyzer

◦  Acumen Cloud benchmarking

Fuse modules

// Fuse Demo

// Case Study #2

•  Outcome:

•  Contractor B fastest, cheapest but poorest quality

•  Contractor A cheapest but fundamental logic flaw

•  Contractor C was most expensive but…

•  Had highest quality score

•  Had a true continuous driving path

•  Had sound cash flow

•  Ranked highly with regards to benchmarking

•  Was awarded the contract!

Bidding Competitiveness

// Case Study #3

◦  GasCom

◦  LNG Pipeline & Facility Owner

◦  Early FEED stage

◦  Project Details

◦  Readying for sanction approval

◦  Expected First Gas Date: Dec. 2013

◦  Gas sales contract already established

◦  Using Primavera P6

Schedule Acceleration/Risk Reduction


Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

// S1 > S2

◦  Sanction Board Requirements

◦  Risk-adjusted forecast P75

◦  Fuse Schedule Index 75+

◦  Project Status

◦  S1 showing Dec 13 first gas

◦  Risk assessment not yet conducted

Schedule Review


Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

// S1 > S2 Schedule Critique

◦  Validated multiple sub-projects

◦  Test to ensure true path to First Gas

◦  Analysis showed break in path around Early Works

◦  Fixing this, First Gas moved to the right by 2 months

◦  Schedule cleanse: further 3 months adjustment

Sound Basis of Schedule

May 16, 2012

// Removal of Logic Redundancy Simplification of Schedule

8% redundancy

Removal of redundancy led to a cleaner, more robust schedule

// S1 > S2

◦  S2 First Gas date: May 2014

◦  Schedule Critique Details:

◦  Missing Logic was added

◦  Lags converted to activities

◦  Float analysis

◦  Showed padding of early activities

Summary


Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

5 months S2: May 2014 S1: Dec 2013

// Float Analysis

◦  S1 showed high float in early stage of project

◦  S2 resolved schedule showed the opposite

◦  Early acceleration opportunity went away

GasCom

0

20

40

60

Q1 2011

Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014 S1 Average Float S2 Average Float

Originally perceived opportunity

for making up lost time through

float absorption in early stage of

project

Resolved schedule not

offering early stage schedule

acceleration

// S2 > S3

◦  Objective:

◦  Determine a P75 First Gas date

◦  Conducted Risk Workshop

Risk Analysis


Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

Uncertainty

Risk Events

Schedule

// GasCom Perception of Risk Exposure Risk Inputs & Outputs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Team Percep>on

Actual Risk Hotspots

Uncertainty Factor Best Case (Optimistic) Worst Case (Pessimistic) Very Conservative 50% 100%

Conservative 75% 105%

Realistic 90% 110%

Aggressive 95% 125%

Very Aggressive 100% 150%

// Risk Insight Risk Inputs

Aggressive •  Skew to the right

Conserva>ve •  Skew to the lef

Broad Risk Range •  Range <> dura>on

Ques>onable Range •  Accidently includes risk events

No Risk • Missed ranging

Average Risk Range •  Degree of uncertainty

No upside •  Can only be later

No Downside •  Can only be earlier

Wrong •  Inputs don’t align

// Risk Insight Risk Exposure

High cri>cality •  Risk indicator

Hidden cri>cal paths •  Unique insight

Risk Hotspots™ •  Risky & complex logic

Schedule risk drivers •  True risk metric

High Con>ngency •  How much buffer needed?

Average Risk exposure •  Risk Trending/path

//

◦  P75 risk-adjusted First Gas: Oct 2014

◦  10 months later than board expectations

◦  Identified key risk hot spots

◦  Long Lead procurement items

◦  Hidden path identified

◦  Driven by land acquisition delaying

pipeline early works

S2 > S3 Summary


Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

S1: Dec 2013

S2: May 2014 5

S3: Oct 2014 10

//

◦  Risk Mitigation:

◦  Response plan identified for key risks

◦  Response plans added to schedule

◦  Assessed cost/benefit of mitigation

◦  $100MM investment to save 1 month

S3 > S4 Getting back to Dec 2013


Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

//

◦  Schedule Acceleration details:

◦  LNG Pipeline ready for hookup: Feb 13

◦  LNG Facility ready to receive gas: Nov 13

◦  Focus needed:

◦  Accelerating the LNG facility

◦  Could afford to slow down pipeline/

field work by months…

S3 > S4 Getting back to Dec 2013


Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

// LNG Facility

◦  Criteria set drives acceleration

◦  Reduce duration

◦  More resources

◦  Changed calendars

◦  Contractor incentive

◦  Delay Train 2

Acceleration Criteria Set

LNG Facility

Script Objec/ve “accelerate Facility by 6

months”

Step 1 Accelerate Jeoy construc>on

Step 2 Delay Train 2 ac>vi>es

Step 3 Introduce 6 day working week/larger camp

// How did this work?

◦  CPM simulation

◦  Critical path focus

◦  Incremental push

◦  Prioritize

◦  Earliest/latest

◦  Longest durations

◦  Least resistance

Fuse 360 Acceleration

//

◦  LNG Facility:

◦  Accelerated sufficiently

◦  No longer the driving path

◦  S4 Deterministic First Gas: Aug 2013

◦  4 months earlier than S1

◦  12 months earlier than S3

◦  P75 risk-adjusted: Feb 2014

◦  S5 Team Buy-in

◦  Final 2 months achieved through more

aggressive mitigation

S3 > S4 > S5 Summary


Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

// GasCom Case Study

◦  Fully vetted, bought-into schedule

◦  Risk-adjusted

◦  LNG Facility accelerated to align with pipeline

◦  Mitigation plan sponsored by board

◦  Sanction awarded!

The Result

S4: Accelerated Aug 1 2013

S1: Target 1st Gas Dec 1 2013

S2: Resolved Schedule May 1 2014

S3: Risk-Adjusted Oct 1 2014

P75 S4: Feb 2014

S5: Mitigated Dec 1 2013

// GasCom First Gas Dates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

S1 -‐ base S2 -‐ resolved S3 -‐ risk-‐adjusted S4 -‐ accelerated S5 -‐ mi>gated

0

5

10

2 0

P75 Sche

dule Delay From Dec 2013 1st G

as (m

onths)

Scenario

Resolved, risk-adjusted,

accelerated, mitigated

Evolution of Schedule Model

May 16, 2012

60

// Case Study #3

ü  Float analysis

ü  Risk Metrics

ü  Fuse 360

Fuse Modules

// Fuse 360 Demo

// Acceleration Efficiency™

◦  2 day project acceleration

◦  Requires 2 days of reduction

◦  Acceleration Efficiency =2/2 100%

◦  2 day project acceleration

◦  Requires 2 days of reduction

◦  Acceleration Efficiency=2/3 67%

Example 2

2 day project acceleration

2 day project acceleration

2 day activity reduction 2 day activity

reduction

1 day activity reduction 3

Measure of Acceleration Effort

Example 1

// Case Study #4: Measuring Project Performance

◦  Traditional measures include: ◦  Earned value: heavy time investment to implement

◦  Earned schedule: similar to EV

◦  % complete: what does this really tell us?

◦  Ahead/behind baseline: too granular a scale…

◦  Baseline Compliance™ ◦  Determine how close schedule is executed against baseline

◦  Measure of change during planning phase

◦  Measure of well the plan is being executed

◦  More than just date comparison

◦  Looks at period-compliance

Baseline Compliance™

May 16, 2012

// Baseline Compliance Index™

Examines how many ac>vi>es fell within the expected

repor>ng period

// Developing Baseline Compliance Index

// Finish Compliance Index™

0% 20% 40%

60%

80%

100%

May 16, 2012

// Better Planning Drives Project Success Proven Correlation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

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

Prob

ability of O

n-‐Time Co

mple/

on

Fuse Schedule Index™

//

More information: White papers: www.projectacumen.com

Software Trial: www.projectacumen.com/trial

Twitter: @projectacumen

Email: [email protected]

Acumen Fuse World Tour 2012

Technology

Transcript of Acumen Fuse World Tour 2012