Critical Chain Project Management:
Motivation & Overview
Robert Richards, Ph.D.
Project Manager
Stottler Henke Associates, Inc.
Hilbert Robinson
President
Afinitus Group LLC
Are You A Responsible Person?
Scenario:
You live in New England and it’s late Winter
Time to airport varies from 45 minutes to 3 hours depending…
Most times it takes a little over 65 minutes
You are joining the President at 9:00 AM at the airport
Questions:
How early should you leave? __________
Why?_____________________________
2
Presentation Outline
Background
•
•
•
Triple Constraints
Murphy’s Law
Complexity
Problem [What to Change]
•
Localized Risk Management
-
Task Level Insurance Policy
Student Syndrome
Parkinson’s Law
Multi-tasking
Solution [What to Change to]
•
Governing Principle - Global Risk Management
-
Project Level Protection
Systems Perspective
Execution Control
3
Background
Triple Constraints [Binding Commitments]
1.
2.
3.
Time [Minimize]
Capacity / Resource Budget [Minimize]
Content / Scope / Quality [Maximize]
4
Background
Murphy’s Law [Disruption Event]
•
•
•
Number of unknowns
Range of possibilities
Frequency of repetition
Complexity [Amplification factor]
•
•
•
Degree of integration required
Number of dimensions to be integrated
Speed of execution
5
Presentation Outline
Background
•
•
•
•
Governing Principle or Paradigm Shift
Triple Constraints
Complexity
Murphy’s Law
Problem [What to Change]
• Localized Risk Management
–
–
–
–
Task Level Insurance Policy
Student Syndrome
Parkinson’s Law
Multi-tasking
Solution [What to Change to]
• Governing Principle - Global Risk Management
– Project Level Protection
– Systems Perspective
– Execution Control
6
Problem: Localized Risk
Management Strategy
1.
Task level insurance policy
See opening scenario – answers?
And if it was a task in a project??
** How safe is safe enough?**
2.
Student Syndrome
The dog ate my homework
3.
Parkinson's Law
Self-fulfilling prophecy [good estimating?]
4.
Multi-tasking [absence of priorities]
Hero or villain?
7
Problem: Localized Risk Management
One Resource, Four Tasks, from Four Different Projects
Multi-tasking causes delays to spread across all projects,
adding as much as 20% to all projects
8
Presentation Outline
Background
•
•
•
•
Governing Principle or Paradigm Shift
Triple Constraints
Complexity
Murphy’s Law
Problem [What to Change]
•
Localized Risk Management
– Task Level Insurance Policy
– Student Syndrome
– Parkinson’s Law
Solution [What to Change to]
•
Global Risk Management
– Project Level Protection
– Systems Perspective
– Execution Control
9
Solution
Governing Principle Behind CCPM is:
Aggregation of risk…
Benefits:
•
•
•
Lower overall protection needed
Higher degree of “coverage” achieved
Leading to lower incidence of “failure”
10
Solution:
Global Approach to Risk Management
1. Planning
1. Project Level vs. Task Level Protection
2. Systems Perspective for Multiple Projects
1. Should load for multiple projects be considered?
2. Why?
3. How?
2. Execution Control
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Promote and encourage team culture
Controlled work queues
No multi-tasking work rules
No batch processing work rules
Task assignment prioritization
Management by Exception
11
Critical Chain Planning Process
From Task to Project Protection
1. Traditional Plan
144 hours
2. Safety Excluded
72 hours
3. Resource Leveled
4. Critical Chain Marked
84 hours
12
Critical Chain Planning Process
From Task to
Project Protection
144 Hours
1. Traditional Plan
72 Hours
2. Safety Excluded
3. Resource Leveled
84 Hours
4. Critical Chain Marked in
Yellow
13
Aggregation Principle
The Concept of Risk Pooling:
Can someone explain why this works?
Health Care Example:
Larger pool = Lower cost
.
14
Aggregation Principle
Insurance is designed to work by spreading costs across a large number
of people. Premiums are based on the average costs for the people in an
insured group. This risk-spreading function helps make insurance
reasonably affordable for most people.
http://www.insurance.wa.gov/legislative/factsheets/PoolingRiskReducingCost.asp
15
Critical Chain Planning
Compared to 144 days
traditional
132 hours
PB = Project Buffer
FB = Feeding Buffer
Aggregation Principle [where did some of the safety go?]:
1. Pooled protection provides more coverage
2. Location is just as important as amount
3. Sizing Rule of Thumb  2/3rds to 1/3rd
Buffer is half of preceding chain
16
16
Critical Chain Planning
Schedule shown in Aurora
132 hours compared to
144 hours in traditional
schedule
Proj_Buf = Project Buffer
FB = Feeding Buffer
17
17
Critical Chain in Execution
Schedule Before Execution Starts
132 hours
“AS OF DATE”
132 hours
1. T8 experienced a 5 day increase in scope or delay
2. Results in a 2.5 day impact to the project buffer
3. The rest was absorbed by the Critical Chain gap
4. 35-32.5=2.5 7% Complete and 14% Buffer Consumed
18
Perspective on Buffers
Not “rear view mirror watching”
Predictive/Preventative/Leading Indicator
Mechanism to Promote and encourage Team Work
Collaboration / Communication Incentive Mechanism
Measuring device – Neutral, Normalized Metrics
Real-time Risk Meter
Encourages an holistic/goal oriented perspective
19
NOTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
* Tipping point also reminded me about what we were taught in
psychology and sociology classes.
* Human Behavior is greatly affected by their CONTEXT / environment.
This is not obvious because people are actually very good at
controlling their context.
There have been many presentations at this and virtually every other
project management related conference, about how team members
should perform and how project managers should deal with human
relationships to make projects successful.
HOWEVER, most of the time we are trying to change human
behavior withOUT changing the context.
* Critical PATH project management creates a CONTEXT for people to
perform in
* Critical CHAIN project management creates a very different CONTEXT
for people to perform in
* Critical Chain is a context that promotes the type of behaviors that
needed for effective teams
E.g., “Avoid Blaming & Complaining”
* Critical Chain  When things go bad, not meeting commitments  team
rushes to help NOT blame
So incentive to hide problems, & look for scapegoats is greatly
reduced.
20
Critical Chain Priority Metric
Project Status Trend Chart or “Fever” Chart
21
Critical Chain Priority Metric
Project Status Trend Chart or “Fever” Chart
22
Multi-Project System
Systems Perspective for Multiple Projects
1. Should load for multiple projects be considered jointly?
–
Obviously
2. Why?
–
Prevent System Overload/Multi-tasking
3. How?
–
23
By taking a Systems Perspective
Creating a Multi-Project Schedule
Finite Capacity Pipeline
Due Dates Are Derived
Ingredients:
1. CC Plans [shorter]
2. Strategic Pacing Mechanism
3. Strict Priority Scheme
4. Rate Limit Policy/Guidelines
24
In Execution, Buffer Status Drives Priority
Decisions, not Project Importance
0
% Buffer Consumed
100
Multi-Project Execution Control
Pipeline Status Snap Shot
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
% Critical Chain Completed
0
100
By Portfolio of Projects
25
The Upshot…
Benefits
1.
2.
3.
4.
Operational Coherence – Stability
20% Shorter Cycle-Times – Speed
On-time Performance – Reliability
More throughput – Growth
Challenges:
1.
2.
3.
4.
26
Simple but not easy to grasp – too simple?
Requires a change in mindset
Takes 120 days for typical 100 person team
We don’t need that much improvement
Questions ???
Robert Richards Ph.D.,
Stottler Henke Associates, Inc.
Richards@StottlerHenke.com
Hilbert Robinson
President
Afinitus Group LLC
27