ESD.36 System Project Management
+
-
Lecture 12
Strategic Project Management
Instructor(s)
Dr. James Lyneis
October 18, 2012
+
-
Today’s Agenda
• Strategic Project Management
• Example 1: Project Preparation
• Example 2: Project Planning
• Example 3: Project Execution
2
+
-
System Project Management
ESD.36 Framework
Project
Preparation
Doing the
Right Job
Project
Planning
Project
Monitoring
Project
Control Doing the
Enterprise has
chosen what product
or system to develop
Next
Project
Job Right
Project
Adaptation
Project
Completion
Project
Learning
3
+
-
What is corporate strategy
as it applies to projects
and the project portfolio,
versus “strategy” as it
applies to an individual
project ?
4
+
Corporate Strategy for the Project

Determining the fit of the project to business
objectives (the “mission” – doing the right job)




features / scope of end product
schedule milestones (time to market)
delivered quality (defects)
resources & budget (development cost)
And the mix/timing of “projects” necessary to achieve
corporate strategy
Operationally, “projects” implement
corporate strategy.
5
+
Strategic Project Management

Understanding how project “design” decisions
affect project performance …







Scope/schedule/ ... (i.e., mission feasibility)
Organization, process, ...
Buffers, phase overlap, ...
Staffing strategies, schedule slip, ...
...
… and how they affect other current projects
(portfolio issues), and future projects.
Learning from past projects.
Operationally, “day-to-day project
decisions” implement project strategy.
6
+
-
Example: Strategic/Tactical vs
Operational Staffing Decisions
Strategic/Tactical
Hire experienced staff
rather than inexperienced
 Start with all of staff you
need or gradually build
 How much training for
inexperienced staff
 ….

Operational
Who specifically and
with what experience
 How many, and/or at
what ramp up
 When, what programs,
etc.

7
+
-
System Project Management
ESD.36 Framework
Project
Preparation
Doing the
Right Job
Project
Planning
Strategic
Enterprise has
Project
chosen what product
or system to Management
develop
Corporate
Strategy
Next
Project
Project
Monitoring
Project
Control Doing the
Job Right
Project
Adaptation
Project
Completion
Project
Learning
8
+
-
DISCUSSION?
9
+
What is SD useful for?


Conceptualization of project dynamics
and the issues/tradeoffs involved in
strategic management of projects
Quantification of above …



Heuristics
Specific forecasts and decision guidance
Project-to-project learning
10
+
SD Qualitative Insights -1
-
1. A feasible plan is essential, including:




Estimates of rework, undiscovered rework,
and delays in discovering that rework
Estimates of productivity loss dealing with
rework
Adequate buffers and reserves for rework
[Rework increases with project uncertainty
and complexity]
11
+
-
SD Qualitative Insights – 2
2. A feasible plan recognizes the “iron
triangle”; there will be multiple
“feasible” plans depending on
priorities.
3. Tradeoffs in the plan can often be
improved by changes in project
structure and organization to reduce
rework and delays in discovering
rework.
12
+
-
SD Qualitative Insights – 3
4. Attempts to achieve an infeasible plan
via project control actions lead to
“vicious circle” side effects which
increase project cost and duration.
 On complex projects, these costs usually
exceed the “direct” costs of infeasibility
5. Project “changes,” and risks which
materialize, are fundamentally the
same as an infeasible plan. (Lecture 13)
13
+
-
SD Qualitative Insights – 4
6. Project managers need buffers and/or
flexibility (e.g., slip schedule, cut scope, ship
with “bugs”) to respond to changes and
uncertainties. These have costs that need
to be evaluated; the importance of different
tradeoffs differs by project. (Lecture 13)
7. The costs of project control can be
minimized by understanding the sources of
the vicious circles. The timing, magnitude,
and duration of different controls affects
performance.
14
+
-
SD Perspective: Typical project dynamics
result in schedule &/or budget overrun ...
Project
Staffing
What can we do to
avoid/minimize the
dynamics ...
… in project preparation
and planning?
… in project execution and
adaptation?
Typical
Plan
Time
15
+
How Does It Get Started?
-
Other Risks
Effort
Applied
Productivity
+
Scope
Growth
Original
Work to Do
Fraction Correct
and Complete
-
Progress
Rework
Generation
Progressx
Rew
ork
Work Done
Infeasible
Plan
Rework to
Do
These are
characteristics of
“complex” (vs.
“simple”) projects
+
Uncertainty &
Complexity
Rework
Discovery
-
Undiscovered
Rework
Changes
+
Time to Discover Rework
16
+





Example Project
Scope = 1000 Tasks
Scheduled Completion Date = 30 (Month)
Staff = 40 (Implied budget of 1200
person- months, including 200 tasks
estimated rework)
Normal Quality = 0.85
Productivity = 1 task/month/person
Note: Infeasible Plan
17
+
-
Project Behavior
Cost = 1570
person-months,
Finish 39.25
Staff & Progress
2,000 Tasks
100 People
Total Tasks = 1570
Work Done
Staff
1,000 Tasks
50 People
0 Tasks
0 People
0
6
12
18
24
30 36
Time (Month)
Work Done : Variable Fraction Correct
Cumulative Work Done : Variable Fraction Correct
Staff : Variable Fraction Correct
42
How do we
change &
manage the
project60to
48 54
improve its
Tasks
performance?
Tasks
People
18
+
-
Today’s Agenda
• Strategic Project Management
• Example 1: Project Preparation
Developing a Consistent Plan
• Example 2: Project Planning
• Example 3: Project Execution
19
+
-
A Consistent (Feasible) Project
Avoids the Dynamics
“SD Class 3” Model With:






Scope = 1000 (tasks)
Scheduled Completion Date = 35 (month)
[versus 30 in Class 3 model]
Delivered Quality > 99%
Normal Fraction Correct = 0.85
Staff = 50 (people) [Versus 40 staff ; Implying a
budget of 1750 person-months, versus 1200 person-months]
Estimated Rework = 750 tasks [versus 200]
20
A Consistent Project Avoids the
Dynamics
+
-
Staff & Progress
60 People
1,000 Tasks
Basic Behaviour
Work Done
Staff
1,000 Tasks
1,000 Tasks
1,000 Tasks
To Do
Done
500 Tasks
500 Tasks
500 Tasks
30 People
500 Tasks
Undiscovered
Rework
0 Tasks
0 Tasks
0 Tasks
0 People
0 Tasks
0
6
12
18
Staff for Output : SD4 Feasible Plan1
Work Done : SD4 Feasible Plan1
24
30 36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
People
Tasks
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time
42
Work to Do : SD4 Feasible Plan1
Work Done : SD4 Feasible Plan1
Undiscovered Rework : SD4 Feasible Plan1
48
54
60
Tasks
Tasks
Tasks
Plan fully accounts for rework tasks;
Schedule and staffing plan reflect rework cycle
21
Normal design evolution accounted
for in plan
+
-
Productivity
Fraction Correct and Complete
1
Effect of Experience
1.1
1
Productivity
0.9
Fraction
Correct
0.75
Fraction
Task/(Person*Month)
1.2
Effect of
Experience
0.5
Effect of
Undiscovered Rework
0.25
0
0.8
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
Productivity : SD4 Feasible Plan1
Effect of Experience on Productivity : SD4 Feasible Plan1
"Effect of Intensity/Hours on Productivity" : SD4 Feasible Plan1
42
48
54
60
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Fraction Correct and Complete : SD4 Feasible Plan1
Effect of Experience on Fraction Correct : SD4 Feasible Plan1
Effect of Undiscovered Rework on Fraction Correct : SD4 Feasible Plan1
"Effect of Intensity/Hours on Fraction Correct" : SD4 Feasible Plan1
22
-
Infeasible projects initiate the dynamics
when management responds …
Trying to achieve
inconsistent
objectives can
lead to disaster …
Staff for Output
100
Infeasible,
Control
75
People
+
50
25
Feasible Plan
Infeasible,
No Control
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Staff for Output : SD4 Infeasible Plan Control
Staff for Output : SD4 Infeasible Plan No Control
Staff for Output : SD4 Feasible Plan1
23
+
What do we expect?
-
Other Risks
Effort
Applied
Productivity
+
Scope
Growth
Original
Work to Do
+
Progress
Project
Progressx
Staffing
Uncertainty &
Complexity
Fraction Correct
and Complete
-
Rework
Generation
Work Done
Expectation:
Rew
ork
Feasible
Plan
Infeasible
Plan
Rework to
Do
Rework
Discovery
-
Undiscovered
Rework
Changes
Infeasible
plan
+
Time to Discover Rework
Time
24
+
But when management reacts
-
+!&!
+
Effort
Applied
Productivity
+
Scope
Growth
Original
Work to Do
Quality
+
Progress
Progressx
Infeasible
Plan
Rework to
Do
+
Rework
Discovery
-
People
Resources:
Overtime
Work Intensisty
+
Experience
Dilution
-
+
Experience
-
Rework
Generation
Rew
ork
Changes
Undiscovered
Rework
Overlap &
Concurrence
-
Scope Growth
+
Productivity
+
+
+
Rework
Generation
Progress
-
Add People
+
Hiring
Work Intensity
Haste Makes
Waste
+
+
Work Done
Progressx Rework
Undiscovered
Rework
Rework to Do
Rework Discovery
+
Errors Build
Errors
+
Work More
-
Original Work
to Do
Errors Create
More Work
Unknown Errors
in Prior Work +
Deadline
Overtime
-
+ Quality
+
+
Known Work
+ Remaining
-
+
Time
Remaining
+
--
Haste Creates
Out-ofSequence Work
+
+
Time to Discover Rework
+
+
+
Effort Needed
+
+
Workforce
+
Effort Applied
Hopelessness
Add
Resources
+
Burnout
Morale
-
+
Too Big to
Manage
+
Fatigue
-
Work Done
+
Congestion &
Communication
Difficulties
Increased
Turnover
Work Faster or
"Slack Off"
Effort Needed
+
-
+
+
+
Time Remaining
Known Work
Remaining
+
Deadline
25
+
Effect of Experience on Fraction Correct
1
0.9
Dimensionless
-
Trying to achieve infeasible plan …
Infeasible,
Control
Feasible
Plan
0.8
Effect of
Experience on
Fraction Correct
0.7
0.6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Effect of Experience on Fraction Correct : SD4 Infeasible Plan Control
Effect of Experience on Fraction Correct : SD4 Infeasible Plan No Control
Effect of Experience on Fraction Correct : SD4 Feasible Plan1
26
-
Which snowballs via “errors on
errors” feedback …
Effect of Undiscovered Rework on Fraction Correct
1
Feasible
Plan
0.85
Dimensionless
+
Infeasible,
Control
0.7
Infeasible,
No Control
0.55
Effect of “Errors
on Errors”
0.4
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Effect of Undiscovered Rework on Fraction Correct : SD4 Infeasible Plan Control
Effect of Undiscovered Rework on Fraction Correct : SD4 Infeasible Plan No Control
Effect of Undiscovered Rework on Fraction Correct : SD4 Feasible Plan1
27
+
-
With end result worse (schedule/cost)
than if project budgeted higher at start!
Test
Finish
Cost(person-mos)
Infeasible Plan Targets
30
1200
Infeasible, No Control
Infeasible, with
control)
Feasible Plan 1
Feasible Plan 2
39.25
36.25
1570
2148
33.75
30.125
1615
1650
Best choice depends on corporate strategy.
Note: Feasible Plan 1 (Initial Staff 50, Schedule 35, Budget 1750);
Feasible Plan 2 (Initial Staff 60, Schedule 30, Budget 1800)
28
+
-
The “Iron Triangle”
Scope
Cost
Project
Schedule
There are
alternative
feasible plans
that reflect
project priorities
29
+
-
Survey Question 1
Does your organization plan for rework in
establishing project budgets and baselines?
1.
Yes, we explicitly try to estimate the
expected amount of rework
2.
Yes, but only by adding a “management
reserve”
3.
No
30
+
-
Survey Question
Do you feel that on the typical project in your
organization, budget and schedule are …
1.
More than is needed
__________
2.
Tight, but manageable
__________
3.
Insufficient enough that the vicious circles are
significant
__________
31
+
-
Why Won’t We Develop a Realistic
Plan?
Then why add resources when
situation realized?
32
+
Getting a Feasible Plan


Use a model
Use data from prior projects (learning!), and
calibration, to estimate:






Normal Productivity
Normal Fraction Correct and Complete
Time to Discover Rework
Total rework and undiscovered rework profile
Strength of effects …
Include buffers and have a sound project
control plan (see example 3)
33
+
SD Qualitative Insights Review
1.
A feasible plan is essential, including:




Estimates of rework, undiscovered rework, and delays in
discovering that rework
Estimates of productivity loss dealing with rework
Adequate buffers and reserves for rework
[Rework increases with project uncertainty and complexity]
2. A feasible plan recognizes the “iron triangle”; there will be
multiple “feasible” plans depending on priorities.
4. Attempts to achieve an infeasible plan via project control
actions lead to “vicious circle” side effects which increase
project cost and duration.
34
+
-
SD Qualitative Insights – 2
2. A feasible plan recognizes the “iron
triangle”; there will be multiple
“feasible” plans depending on
priorities.
3. Tradeoffs in the plan can often be
improved by changes in project
structure and organization to reduce
rework and delays in discovering
rework.
35
+
-
Today’s Agenda
• Strategic Project Management
• Example 1: Project Preparation
• Example 2: Project Planning
Deciding on the Process Model
• Example 3: Project Execution
36
+
What Increases Cost & Schedule?
-
Uncertainty that reduces fraction complete and
correct.


Technical complexity
Uncertainty about customer requirements
37
+
-
Strategic Project Planning
What changes in process, organization,
etc. might help deal with technical or
customer uncertainties?




Increase planned design iterations?
Autonomous (dedicated) integrated product
team vs. functional?
Waterfall vs. d/b/t iterative vs. spiral vs. …?
More phase overlap and concurrency?
How do we assess what process model is right
for out project?
38
How do we assess what process
model is right for our project?
+
-
Determining Impact on Dynamics:
1. Model project with current processes, policies, …
2. Specify direct impacts of alternatives on -





Scope (added tasks)
Productivity
Fraction correct and complete
Rework discovery
Strength of productivity and FCC effects
...
[Secondary impacts assessed via simulation]
3. Simulate and compare performance
4. Test sensitivity to uncertain assumptions
39
Example: Three-Phase Model
(from Lecture 7)
+
-
Requirements
Design
Start Design
Rampup
Requirements
Planned Staff
Trigger for CDR
Requirements
Fraction of Effort to
Rework
Requirements Staff
on Original Work
Requirements
Indicated Staff
Requirements Maximum
Work Rate Based on
Rework Tasks Available
<Initial
Requirements
Work to Do>
Requirements
Fraction Correct and
Complete
Design Startup
Requirements Relative
Effort Required for
Rework
Requirements
Staff on Rework
Requirements
Priority to Original
Work
Requirements Original
Work Being
Accomplishmed
Requirements
Productivity
Requirements Rework
Generation on Rework
<Initial
Requirements
Work to Do>
Requirements Rework
Being Accomplishmed
Design Staff on
Original Work
Design
Indicated Staff
Design Maximum Work
Rate Based on Rework
Tasks Available
Design
Productivity
<Initial Design
Work to Do>
Design Fraction
Correct and
Complete
Design
Original
Work to Do
Design Rework
Generation on
Rework
Rqmts Fraction of Work
Done Correct and
Complete
Assumptions:
<Initial Build/Test
Work to Do>
Build/Test
Original
Work to Do
Design Work
Done
Design
Undiscovered
Rework
Design Time to
Discover Rework
Maximum Effect of
Undiscovered Rework on
Fraction Correct
Scope = 100 Tasks
Staff = 6
Productivity = 2 tasks/month/person
Duration = 8.33 months (no rework)
NFCC = 0.75
<Fraction Design
Rework Discovered>
<Initial Build/Test
Work to Do>
Build/Test Fraction
Correct and Complete
Build/Test
Build/Test Rework Work Done
Done Correctly
Design Fraction of Work
Done Correct and
Complete
<Maximum Effect of
Undiscovered Rework on
Fraction Correct>
Sensitivity of Build/Test
Fraction Complete to Rmnts
Undiscovered Rework
Scope = 1000 tasks
Staff = 25
Productivity = 4 tasks/month/person
Duration = 10 months (no rework)
NFCC=0.7
Build/Test Fraction
Reported Complete
Project Finished
Switch
Build/Test
Build/Test Rework Undiscovered
Generation on Rework Rework
Build/Test Rework
Discovery
Design Work
Believed to Be Done
Build/Test Rework
Being Accomplishmed
Build/Test Rework
Generation on Original
Work
Build/Test
Rework to Do
Build/Test Effect of Design
Undiscovered Rework On
Fraction Correct
Build/Test
Productivity
Build/Test Original
Work Done Correctly
Design Rework
Discovery
<Fraction Rqmts
Rework Discovered>
Sensitivity of Design
Fraction Complete to Rmnts
Undiscovered Rework
Normal Build/Test
Fraction Correct and
Complete
Design Rework
Done Correctly
Design
Rework to Do
Build/Test
Productivity on
Rework
Build/Test Original
Work Being
Accomplishmed
Build/Test Minimum
Time to Finish a Task
Design Rework
Generation on Original
Work
Design Effect of Rqmnts
Undiscovered Rework On
Fraction Correct
Rqmnts Work
Believed to Be Done
Design Rework
Being
Accomplishmed
Build/Test Priority
to Original Work
Build/Test Maximum Work
Rate Based on Original
Work Tasks Available
Design Fraction
Reported Complete
Design Original
Work Done Correctly
Normal Design
Fraction Correct
and Complete
Requirements
Rework Discovery
Build/Test Maximum Work
Rate Based on Rework
Tasks Available
<Initial Design
Work to Do>
Staff on Rework
Build/Test Relative
Effort Required for
Rework
Build/Test Staff on
Original Work
Build/Test
Indicated Staff
Design Priority to
Original Work
Design
Productivity on
Rework
Design Original Work
Being Accomplishmed
Requirements
Work Done
Requirements
Undiscovered
Rework
Design Relative Effort
Required for Rework
Design Maximum Work
Rate Based on Original
Work Tasks Available
Design Minimum
Time to Finish a Task
Reqmts Time to
Discover Rework
Build/Test Fraction
of Effort to Rework
Design Staff on
Rework
Requirements
Fraction Reported
Complete
Requirements
Rework Done
Correctly
Build/Test Staff
Design Fraction of
Effort to Rework
Requirements Rework
Generation on Original Work
Requirements
Rework to Do
Build/Test
Planned Staff
Build/Test
Startup
Design Staff
Design
Planned Staff
Requirements
Productivity on
Rework
Requirements Original
Work Done Correctly
Requirements
Original Work
to Do
<Switch for
Phased Startup>
Switch for
Phased Startup
Trigger for SRR
Requirements
Minimum Time to
Finish a Task
End Build
Rampup
Start Build
Rampup
End Design
Rampup
Project Staff
Requirements Staff
Requirements Maximum
Work Rate Based on Original
Work Tasks Available
Build/Test
Build/Test Work
Believed to Be Done
Build/Test Time to
Discover Rework
<Fraction Build/Test
Rework Discovered>
Scope = 1000 tasks
Staff = 40
Productivity = 1 tasks/month/person
Duration = 25 months (no rework)
NFCC= 0.95
40
+






Rework Discovery Assumptions
(similar to CityCar HW#3)
60% of rework discoverable in design
One design planned iteration & limited design review
 Fraction of Rework Discovered in First Iteration =
30%
Fraction of Rework Discovered in Later Design
Iterations = 70% two iterations, 95% three iterations
(note: derivable via DSM and signal flow graph
simulation?)
Tasks repeated per iteration = 25%
Build starts when design is 70% reported complete
41
+
Simulation results for current processes …
-
Work Done
No rework
finish
Project Staff
1,000
80
Design
500
Build/Test
250
12
40
Design
20
0
0
6
Build/Test
Requirements
Requirements
0
Total
60
People
Task
750
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
Requirements Work Done : Three P Four Stock V5 Base
Design Work Done : Three P Four Stock V5 Base
"Build/Test Work Done" : Three P Four Stock V5 Base
42
48
54
60
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Requirements Staff : Three P Four Stock V5 Base
Design Staff : Three P Four Stock V5 Base
"Build/Test Staff" : Three P Four Stock V5 Base
Project Staff : Three P Four Stock V5 Base
Design “done”
42
+
-
Can we improve
performance by shifting
more rework discovery to
design?
Original Work
Design Stocks
1,000
0.75
Undiscovered
Rework
Rework
500
250
-0.0002
0
6
12
18
0
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
Original Work to Do : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
Undiscovered Rework : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
Rework to Do : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
Work Done : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
Design “done”
54
Fraction
Task
1
Work Done
750
Design
Design
Design
Design
Fraction Design Rework Discovered
0.5
0.25
60
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Fraction Design Rework Discovered : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
Discovery
by design
Discovery
by build
43
+
-
1.
Sources of Rework – Categories
(from Lecture 7)
Classical “Quality” or design misexecution from
people or technical coupling. Discoverable by
further design work such as iteration, review.
2.
Technical complexity/novelty; customer
uncertainty. Discoverable by build/test work,
including d/b/t iterations.
3.
Knock-on Rework Work done “correctly” but
ultimately needing rework. Discoverable by
both.
44
+
Example: Planned Design Iterations
-
1. Add iteration
tasks
Design Staff
Build/Test Staff
Design Staff on
Original Work
Build/Test Staff on
Original Work
Design Staff on
Rework
Design Productivity
Build/Test Staff
on Rework
Build/Test Productivity
Design Original Work
Being Accomplishmed
<Build/Test Initial
Work to Do>
Design Rework
Being
Accomplishmed
Build/test Original
Work Being
Accomplishmed
Build/Test Rework
Being Accomplishmed
<Build/Test Initial
Work to Do>
Design Original Work Done Correctly
Build/Test Original Work Done Correctly
Design
Original
Work to Do
Design Fraction
Correct and
Complete
Build/Test
Original
Work to Do
Design Rework
Generation on Original
Work
Design
Rework to Do
Design Rework
Generation on
Rework
Design Rework
Discovery
Build/Test Rework
Generation on Original
Work
Design Work
Done
Design
Undiscovered
Rework
Build/Test Fraction
Correct and Complete
Design Fraction
Reported Complete
Design Fraction of Work
Done Correct and
Complete
Build/Test
Work Done
Build/Test
Rework to Do
Build/Test Rework
Generation on Rework
Build/Test Rework
Discovery
Build/Test
Undiscovered
Rework
Build/Test Fraction
Reported Complete
Rework discovered in
Design
2. Which discover more
rework in design
Rework discovered in
Build/Test
45
+
Increasing design iterations …
-
… increases design original work, but reduces
downstream rework.
Design Cumulative Original Work Done
Three
Two
1,500
1,000
40
One
500
One
30
People
2,000
Tasks
Design Staff
Two
Three
20
10
0
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
Design Cumulative Original Work Done : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
Design Cumulative Original Work Done : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Two New5
Design Cumulative Original Work Done : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
60
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Design Staff : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
Design Staff : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Two New5
Design Staff : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
46
-
… pushes more rework discovery
into design
Fraction of Design Selected
ReworkVariables
Discovered Over Time
2
1.5
Fraction
+
Three
1
0.5
One
Two
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Fraction Design Rework Discovered : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
Fraction Design Rework Discovered : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Two New5
Fraction Design Rework Discovered : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
47
+
-
Three iterations discovers all the
“discoverable” rework
Fraction Rework Discovered by Design as Fraction of Max
1
Three
Fraction
0.75
Two
0.5
0.25
One
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Fraction Rework Discovered by Design as Fraction of Max : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
Fraction Rework Discovered by Design as Fraction of Max : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Two New5
Fraction Rework Discovered by Design as Fraction of Max : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
Derivable via DSM and signal flow graph simulation?
48
Increasing rework discovered in design
reduces rework left for build …
+
-
Fraction Rework Discovered by Design
1
0.8
Three
0.5
Two
One
0.25
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
One
0.6
Fraction
0.75
Fraction
Fraction Rework Discovered By Build
Two
0.4
Three
0.2
0
54
Fraction Rework Discovered by Design : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
Fraction Rework Discovered by Design : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Two New5
Fraction Rework Discovered by Design : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
60
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Fraction Rework Discovered By Build : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
Fraction Rework Discovered By Build : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Two New5
Fraction Rework Discovered By Build : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
49
Improving build “quality” and
reducing build rework
+
-
Build/Test Fraction Correct and Complete
Cumulative Build Rework
1
600
Three
0.5
Two
0.25
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
Two
-13.1%
300
Three
150
-26.6%
One
0
One
450
Tasks
Fraction
0.75
0
42
48
54
60
"Build/Test Fraction Correct and Complete" : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
"Build/Test Fraction Correct and Complete" : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Two New5
"Build/Test Fraction Correct and Complete" : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
Cumulative Build Rework : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
Cumulative Build Rework : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Two New5
Cumulative Build Rework : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
50
+
-
With the “Base Case” Assumptions …
While build effort is
reduced with more
design iterations …
… the increasing design
cost indicates two
iterations are “optimal”.
What assumptions impact this tradeoff?
51
+



Assumptions
Fraction of design tasks that need to be
repeated per iteration
Relative cost of build/test versus design
When build starts (overlap with design)
52
+
-
The benefits of design iteration
increase the higher build cost
Cumulative Effort (Person-Months)
0.5
One Iteration
Two Iterationss
Three Iterations
1
1187
1903
1199 1.01% 1887 -0.84%
1243.5 4.76% 1904 0.05%
1.25
Build Cost Multiplier
1.5
1.75
2261
2619
2231 -1.33% 2575 -1.68%
2234 -1.18% 2565 -2.08%
2977
2919 -1.95%
2895 -2.76%
2
3
3335
4767
3263 -2.16% 4639 -2.69%
3225 -3.30% 4546 -4.64%
Increasing Build
Cost
53
Build is starting before design rework
is fully discovered
+
-
One Iteration
Three Iterations
1
1
0.75
0.75
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
Effect of Design Undiscovered
Rework on Fraction Correct
Build FCC from Design
Build FCC from Design
0.5
Build/Test
Ramp-up
0.25
0.5
Build/Test
Ramp-up
0.25
0
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Time (Month)
42
48
54
60
"Build/Test Effect of Design Undiscovered Rework On Fraction Correct" : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One
Iter New5Effect of Design Undiscovered Rework On Fraction Correct" : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Thre
"Build/Test
Fraction of Released Design Work Correct and Complete : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5 Fraction of Released Design Work Correct and Complete : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
"Build/Test Startup" : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Iter New5
"Build/Test Startup" : Three P Four S V5 BNFCC 0pt95 Sens 0pt75 Middle One Three New5
Delaying build with one iteration
will have less benefit because
build needed to discover rework.
Iterations 2 & 3 occurring
months 18-24
54
+
-
Benefits of delaying build start
"Middle" Project
Test
"New5 Results"
Cum
Build Rework
One Iteration
Two Iterations
Three Iterations, Start 70%
425.16
369.38
311.86
Three Iterations, Start 60%
Three Iterations, Start 70%
Three Iterations, Start 80%
Three Iterations, Start 90%
Two Iteration, Start 60%
Two Iteration, Start 70%
Two Iteration, Start 80%
Two Iteration, Start 90%
Design
Effort
Build
Effort
Total
Effort
Finish
-13.1%
-26.6%
404.4
444.45
516
1432
1376
1321
1903
1887 -0.84%
1904 0.05%
51.6875
52.875
54.8125
337.67
311.86
285.49
271.99
-20.6%
-26.6%
-32.9%
-36.0%
516
516
516
516
1353
1321
1291
1275
1935 1.68%
1904 0.05%
1874 -1.52%
1857 -2.42%
53.5
54.8125
55.4375
56
386.26
369.4
359
348.72
-9.1%
-13.1%
-15.6%
-18.0%
444.45
444.45
444.45
444.45
1396
1376
1364
1353
1907 0.21%
1887 -0.84%
1875 -1.47%
1864 -2.05%
51.125
52.875
53.4375
54.0625
Three iterations, start at 90% “optimal” cost,
but finish is later.
55
+




Other Factors Affection Desirability
of More Planned Iterations
Normal amount of rework
Amount of rework discoverable in design (vs
in build/test)
Additional rework discovered per iteration
…
56
+
Developing Heuristics by Project Type
Parameter
Normal FCC
Frac Discoverable
in Design
Frac Discoverable
First Iteration
Frac Discoverable
Later Iterations
Tasks Repeated
# Iterations
Build Start
“Novel”
0.6
0.3
“Repeat”
0.7
(examples)
0.6
“Mature”
0.8
0.9
Depends on product & organization:
analyze projects, use DSM &
signal flow graph simulation to
estimate.
1
3
2
When planned iterations done.
Use simulation to develop heuristics by project type.
57
+
-
Summary
1. Under almost all situations, two design iterations are
most cost effective. The benefits of multiple
iterations increases the more design rework that can
be discovered by design. Hence, multiple iterations
makes more sense for “Repeat” and “Middle”
projects than for “Novel” projects.
2. The start of build should be delayed until the design
effort has executed all of the planned iterations.
3. The benefits of additional design iteration increases
the higher build/test costs are relative to design
costs.
58
Revised Network/Gantt showing
planned design iterations
+
-
2010
Apr May June July
Aug Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
2011
Jan Feb
Electronics & Software -- Original
f
Electronics Design
h
Software Dev
p
q
Electronics Delivery
Electronics Software Int
90
5/7/10
150
9/10/10
72
30
9/9/10 b,c,d
4/7/11
9/10/10 12/20/10
4/8/11
5/19/11
Mar
Apr
May June July
Aug Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Design
Build/Test
Coupled
g,f
g,f
h,p
Electronics & Software -- Rework Discovered in Build/Test
f
h
Electronics Design
Software Dev
p
q
Electronics Delivery
Electronics Software Int
90
5/7/10
150
9/10/10
72
30
9/9/10 b,c,d
4/7/11
9/10/10 12/20/10
4/8/11
5/19/11
g,f
g,f
h,p
Electronics & Software -- Planned Iterations
f
h
Electronics Design
Software Dev
p
q
Electronics Delivery
Electronics Software Int
90
5/7/10
150
9/10/10
72
30
9/9/10 b,c,d
4/7/11
9/10/10 12/20/10
4/8/11
5/19/11
g,f
g,f
h,p
Added design iteration
tasks …
… to reduce
unplanned iterations
59
+
-
SD Qualitative Insights – 2
3. Tradeoffs in the plan can often be
improved by changes in project
structure and organization to reduce
rework and delays in discovering
rework.
 See textbook Chapter SD4 for other
examples.
60
+
Today’s Agenda
-
•
•
•
•
Strategic Project Management
Example 1: Project Preparation
Example 2: Project Planning
Example 3: Project Execution
Deciding on Project Controls
61
+
-
SD Qualitative Insights – 4
6. Project managers need buffers and/or
flexibility (e.g., slip schedule, cut scope, ship
with “bugs”) to respond to changes and
uncertainties. These have costs that need
to be evaluated; the importance of different
tradeoffs differs by project. (Lecture 13)
7. The costs of project control can be
minimized by understanding the sources of
the vicious circles. The timing, magnitude,
and duration of different controls affects
performance.
62
+





Strategic Control Issues
Incorporating rework estimates in planning and
progress monitoring (see Chapter SD4.4).
How much to rely on “work intensity” vs. overtime
vs. adding staff?
Should you slip the schedule? Early or late?
Should you pay extra for experience when adding
staff?
How much training (delay in adding staff, but higher
productivity and quality)?
A Strategic View – Deciding in advance the best
way to handle problems if they arise
63
+
Project Resource Control


You’ve misplanned, either because you
don’t include rework estimates or
because this particular project has
unusually high levels ….
Or


Scope growth occurred on the project
Other risks/problems materialized
What do you do?
(note – these are “permanent” impacts, not temporary
delays on isolated parts)
64
Project Control
+
-
“So the best thing to do is to do nothing, right?”
+
Experience
Dilution
-
+
Experience
Congestion &
Communication
Difficulties
Increased
Turnover
-
+
Hopelessness
Overlap &
Concurrence
+
Scope
Growth
+
Workforce
+
Overtime
+
Effort Applied
+
--
+
-
-
+
+
Work Intensity
Rework
Generation
Progress
Add People
-
+
+
Work More
-
+
+
Haste Creates
Out-ofSequence Work
Original Work
to Do
Haste Makes
Waste
Hiring
+
Work Done
Progressx Rework
+
+
Too Big to
Manage
No – the costs of project
control
Quality can be minimized
Productivity
+
by understanding +the
sources of the vicious
Infesaible
circles. The timing,
Plan
Changes
magnitude,
and duration
+
of different controls
+affects performance.
+
Errors Create
More Work
Unknown Errors
in Prior Work +
+
Burnout
+!&!
Morale
+
+
Fatigue
-
+
Undiscovered
Rework
Rework Discovery
Rework to Do
Work Faster or
"Slack Off"
Effort Needed
+
Errors Build
Errors
Time Remaining
+
Known Work
Remaining
Deadline
65
+
-
What do you do? 2012
What You Do at 30%
Add People
Longer Hours
Intensity
Slip
Cut Scope
Other
Total
First
10.6%
31.9%
25.5%
17.0%
14.9%
0.0%
100.0%
Second
52.2%
23.9%
13.0%
8.7%
2.2%
0.0%
100.0%
Third
17.1%
26.8%
19.5%
19.5%
17.1%
0.0%
100.0%
Fourth
11.6%
16.3%
23.3%
23.3%
25.6%
0.0%
100.0%
Fifth
14.3%
7.1%
21.4%
26.2%
31.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Sixth
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Fourth
9.5%
9.5%
21.4%
38.1%
21.4%
0.0%
100.0%
Fifth
8.9%
13.3%
22.2%
24.4%
31.1%
0.0%
100.0%
Sixth
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
25.0%
0.0%
100.0%
What You Do at 65%
Add People
Longer Hours
Intensity
Slip
Cut Scope
Other
Total
First
16.7%
35.4%
16.7%
8.3%
22.9%
0.0%
100.0%
Second
50.0%
29.2%
8.3%
10.4%
2.1%
0.0%
100.0%
Third
31.1%
17.8%
26.7%
15.6%
8.9%
0.0%
100.0%
66
+
-
% Specifying 1st or 2nd Choice
2011
What You Do?
Add People
Longer Hours
Intensity
Slip
Cut Scope
Other
Total
2012
At 30%
40.8%
24.3%
21.4%
5.8%
7.8%
0.0%
100.0%
At 65%
34.7%
23.5%
19.4%
11.2%
11.2%
0.0%
100.0%
What You Do?
Add People
Longer Hours
Intensity
Slip
Cut Scope
Other
At 30%
At 65%
31.2%
33.3%
28.0%
32.3%
19.4%
12.5%
12.9%
9.4%
8.6%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
67
+

Brooks’ Law
"Adding manpower to a late software
project makes it later." Brooks,
Frederick P. Jr. The Mythical ManMonth. Reading, MA, Addison Wesley,
1995.
Homework 5 Analysis: Under what
conditions is this true.
68
+
-
Qualitative model representation
Effort
Applied
Productivity
+
Scope
Growth
Original
Work to Do
+
Resources:
Fraction Correct
and Complete
Rework
Generation
Progressx
Rew
ork
Rework
Discovery
-
+
People
Overtime
Work Intensisty
-
Progress
Infeasible
Plan
Rework to
Do
+
Work Done
Changes
Undiscovered
Rework
Effort Needed
Add
Resources
+
-
+
Time to Discover Rework
Time
Remaining
+
+
Known Work
Remaining
+
Deadline
69
+
-
Project Control
1. Project control is
driven by estimates
of how much effort is
left ...
Work to Do
(Tasks)
2. Estimates are
based on work to
do and
productivity
(undiscovered
rework?)
Estimated Effort
Remaining
+ (Person-Months)
-
Average Productivity
(Tasks/Month/Person)
70
+
-
Project Control -- Staffing
Staff
+
Staff Required to
Complete on
Schedule
+
-
Work to Do
(Tasks)
Estimated Effort
Remaining
+ (Person-Months)
-
How many
people do I need
to get the job
done on time?
Time Remaining
+
Staff Required =
Estimated Effort
Remaining /
Average Productivity
(Tasks/Month/Person)
Scheduled
Completion Date
Time Remaining
[People]
71
+
-
Project Control – Schedule
How many people do
I need to get the job
done on time?
Staff
+
When Can I
finish with the
current staff?
Indicated
Completion Date
Staff Required to
Complete on
Schedule
+
-
+
Estimated Effort
Remaining
+ (Person-Months)
Work to Do
(Tasks)
Indicated Completion
Date = Time +
(Estimated Effort
Remaining/Staff)
[Month]
Time Remaining
+
-
Average Productivity
(Tasks/Month/Person)
Scheduled
Completion Date
72
+
-
Project Control
Based on Staff Required and Indicated
Completion Date, three options:
1. Add Staff
2. Explicitly Slip Schedule
3. Exert “Schedule Pressure” (Work
Intensity and Extra Hours)
73
+
-
Actions Determined By …
+
Work/Schedule
Pressure
“Willingness to
Use Intensity
& Extra Hours
(0-1)
“Willingness to
Hire (0 -1)”
Staff
+
Staff Required to
Complete on
Schedule
+
-
Indicated
Completion Date +
Estimated Effort
Remaining
+ (Person-Months)
Work to Do
(Tasks)
“Willingness
to Slip
(0-1)”
Time Remaining
+
Average Productivity
(Tasks/Month/Person)
Scheduled
Completion Date
+
74
+
-
Testing Brook’s Law?
Effect of Experience
on Productivity and
Quality
Effect = (New Staff *
Relative Experience +
Experienced Staff) /
Staff Level
Relative
Experience of New
Staff
0.0
New Staff
Staff Hired
Willingness to
Hire
What uncertainties
would you test
sensitivity to?
0
Staff Gaining
Experience
Experienced
Staff
6
months
Staff Leaving
40
Staff Level
Required
75
+





Options
Add Staff
Work OT
Increase “intensity”
Slip Schedule
Some Combination
76
+




Discussion – Resource Controls
Relative impact on fraction correct (and
productivity)
Relative delays
Can work intensity be sustained?
Limits – greater for OT than WI?
77
+
-
Step Change in Overtime – Impact on …
FCC/PDY
Equivalent Staff
1
Net Output
78
+
-
Step Change in Staff– Impact on …
FCC/PDY
Equivalent Staff
1
Net Output
79
+
-
Change in Work Intensity – Impact on …
FCC/PDY
Equivalent Staff
1
Net Output
80
+
-
Project Control – Discussion Points
What should you do when a project gets
behind schedule?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
When in the project should you use overtime (and/or
for how long)?
When do you?
When in the project should you hire?
When do you?
Does it ever pay to work more “intensely” (cut
corners, etc.)?
Do you?
When should you use buffers & slack? Slip Schedule?
(as soon as recognized, or try to make up schedule?)
81
+
Lessons -- Control
-
7. The costs of project control can be minimized by
understanding the sources of the vicious circles. The
timing, magnitude, and duration of different controls
affects performance.


Lowest direct cost strategy – slip schedule
If need to meet schedule, lowest cost strategy depends on …




When during project problem recognized
Limits of different resources
Size and timing of secondary impacts of control
May not always be able to achieve the schedule by adding more
resources, but it will always cost you more.
82
+
Next SD Class:
-
Case Examples of …



Change management & disputes
Risk management
Project-to-Project Learning
Multi-project dynamics
83
+
RW
Resources Needed
OT
WF
RW
RW
WI
84
+
-
Step Change in Overtime – Impact on …
FCC/PDY
Equivalent Staff
1
FCC &
PDY
Net Output
1
85
+
-
Step Change in Staff– Impact on …
FCC/PDY
Equivalent Staff
1
FCC &
PDY
Net Output
1
86
+
-
Change in Work Intensity – Impact on …
FCC/PDY
Equivalent Staff
PDY
1
FCC
Net Output
1
87
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
ESD. 6\VWHP3URMHFW0DQDJHPHQW
Fall 2012
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.