Post on 01-Apr-2015
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Defining the Project
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 3-1
Project Management Trade-Offs
Performance
Quality
Cost Time
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 3-2
Project Priority Matrix
Constrain
Enhance
Accept
Time Performance Cost
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 3-3
Hierarchical Breakdown of the WBS
1
2
3
4
Project
Deliverable
Subdeliverable
Lowest subdeliverable
Cost account*
Work package
5
Complete project
Major deliverables
Supporting deliverables
Lowest managementresponsibility level
Grouping of work packagesfor monitoring progress andresponsibility
Identifiable work activities
Level Hierarchical breakdown Description
*This breakdown groups work packages by type of work within a deliverable and allows assignment ofresponsibility to an organizational unit. This extra step facilities a system for monitoring project progress(discussed in Chapter 12).
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 3-4
Work Breakdown StructurePersonal computer
prototype
Vendor,software,
applications
Mouse,keyboard,
voice
Diskstorageunits
Microprocessorunit
Moreitems
Floppy HardOptical Internalmemory
unit
BIOS (basicinput/output
system)
ROM RAM I/O File Utilities
Motor Circuitboard
Chassisframe
Read/writehead
WP-1M WP-1 CB WP-1 CF WP-1 RWHWP-2 CB WP-2 CF WP-2 RWHWP-3 CB WP-3 CF WP-3 RWHWP-4 CB WP-4 RWHWP-5 CB WP-5 RWHWP-6 CBWP-7 CB
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
Work packages
Lowest manageablesubdeliverables
Level1
2
3
4
5
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 3-5
Integration of WBS and OBS
Time
Cost accountnumber
Personal computerprototype
Vendor,software,
applications
Mouse,keyboard,
voice
Diskstorageunits
Microprocessorunit
Moreitems
Floppy HardOptical Internalmemory
unit
BIOS (basicinput/output
system)
ROM RAM I/O File Utilities
Motor Circuitboard
Chassisframe
Read/writehead
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
Lowest manageablesubdeliverables
Level1
2
3
4
5
1.0
1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.31.4.1 1.4.2
1.4.1.1 1.4.1.2 1.4.2.1 1.4.2.2 1.4.2.3
1.1.3.1 1.1.3.2 1.1.3.3 1.1.3.4
Cost 1.1.3.4.1account
Cost Costaccount account
Cost Costaccount account
Costaccount
Costaccount
Work packages WP1.1.3.4.2.1 WP1.1.3.4.2.2 WP1.1.3.4.2.3
Budget byperiod
Production
Design
Test
Purchasing
Software
Manufacturing
Organization
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 3-8
Read/Write Head Design
Cost
Direct Costs Low Average High
Design engineers $ 80 $100 $150Proto engineers 130 150 280Materials 25 25 25Equipment rental 25 25 30
Total direct costs $260 $300 $485
Work package cost estimate
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 3-9
Three Views of Cost
Project Duration
CommittedActual costScheduled budget
Cos
ts$6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Developing a Network Plan
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-1
Rollup of Network Plans
WP-2
A
B
C
D
E
F
WP-1
WP-4
WP-3
Level 1 - Milestone Plan
Level 2 - Plans
Level 3 - Plans
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-2
WBS/Work Packages to Network
Circuitboard
Designcost
account
Productioncost
account
Testcost
account
Softwarecost
account
Lowestelement
Organizatio
Units
DesignWP D-1-1 SpecificationsWP D-1-2 Documentation
ProductionWP P-10-1 Proto 1WP P-10-2 Final Proto 2
Test systemsWP T-13-1 Test
SoftwareWP S-22-1 Software preliminaryWP S-22-1 Software final version
BProto 1
5
DFinal
proto 24
ASpecifications
and documentation2
CPreliminary
software3
FFinal
software2
KTest
3
AD-1-1D-1-2
BP-10-1
DP-10-2
FS-22-2
KT-13-1
CS-22-1
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-3
Activity-on-Node Network Fundamentals
X
Y
Z
Y and Z are preceded by X
Y and Z can begin at thesame time, if you wish
(B)
A B C
A is preceded by nothingB is preceded by AC is preceded by B
(A)
J
K
L
M
J, K, & L can all begin atthe same time, if you wish(they need not occursimultaneously)
All (J, K, L) must becompleted before M canbegin
but
X Z
AAY
(C)
(D)
Z is preceded by X and Y
AA is preceded by X and Y
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-6
Activity-on-Node Network Fundamentals
KOLL BUSINESS CENTERCounty Engineers Design Department
B
15
Constructionplans
C
10
Trafficstudy
D
5
Servicecheck
A
5
Applicationapproval
ES ID EF
SL
LS Dur LF
Description
F
10
Commissionapproval
G
170
Wait for construction
H
35
Occupancy
E
15
Staff report
EF
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-7
Activity-on-Node Network Forward Pass
5 B 20
15
Constructionplans
C
10 10 20
Trafficstudy
D
15 5 20
Servicecheck
A
0 5 5
Applicationapproval
ES ID EF
SL
LS Dur LF
Description
F
20 10 30
Commissionapproval
G
30 170 200
Wait for construction
H
200 35 235
Occupancy
20 E 35
15
Staff report
EF
KOLL BUSINESS CENTERCounty Engineers Design Department
20
15
20
15
10
200
35
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-8
Activity-on-Node Network Backward Pass
B
5 15 20
Constructionplans
C
10 10 20
Trafficstudy
D
15 5 20
Servicecheck
A
0 5 5
Applicationapproval
ES ID EF
SL
LS Dur LF
Description
F
20 10 30
Commissionapproval
G
30 170 200
Wait for construction
H
200 35 235
Occupancy
E
185 15 200
Staff report
LS
KOLL BUSINESS CENTERCounty Engineers Design Department
20
20
185
185
10
15
5
20
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-9
Activity-on-Node Network with Slack
5 B 20
0
5 15 20
Constructionplans
5 C 15
5
10 10 20
Trafficstudy
5 D 10
10
15 5 20
Servicecheck
0 A 5
0
0 5 5
Applicationapproval
ES ID EF
SL
LS Dur LF
Description
20 F 30
0
20 10 30
Commissionapproval
30 G 200
0
30 170 200
Wait for construction
200 H 235
0
200 35 235
Occupancy
20 E 35
165
185 15 200
Staff report
LS EF
KOLL BUSINESS CENTERCounty Engineers Design Department
20
15
185
185
10
15
5
20
20
20
10
20
15
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-10
Software Conversion ProjectResponsibility Matrix
Engineeringdepartment
R A C
Kim C C
Ron C R A A A
Holly R
James R
Chuck A A
Wendy A R
Documentsdepartment
R R C
Sys
tem
spec
ific
atio
ns
Cod
ing
Use
rm
anua
l
For
ms
Cro
ssov
erpl
an
Tra
in s
taff
Tes
tActivities
Org
aniz
atio
nU
nit/
Indi
vidu
al Legend
R = ResponsibilityC = ContributesA = Advises
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-12
Air Control Inc., Custom OrderProject—Network Diagram
1 Orderreview
20 20 2
2
3
4
5
Softwaredevelopment
Orderstandard
parts
Producestandard
parts
Designcustom parts
18 2 2022 40
15 2 1715 30
10 2 12 5 15
13 2 12 5 15
6
7 8
Manufacturecustom
hardware
Assemble Test
Activity8#
Legend
1515 3015 30
1030 4030 40
540 4540 45
DurationES EFLS LF
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-13
Air Control Inc., Custom OrderProject—Gantt Chart
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49
2
13
15
10
18
15
10
5
Order review
Design custom parts
Order standard parts
Produce standard parts
Software development
Manufacture customhardware
Assemble
Test
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-14
Air Control Inc., Custom OrderProject—Network with Dates
1 Orderreview
2 1-Jan 2-Jan 1-Jan 2-Jan
2
3
4
5
Softwaredevelopment
Order standard parts
Produce standard parts
Designcustom parts
18 2-Jan 20-Jan22-Jan 9-Jan
15 2-Jan 17-Jan 15-Jan 30-Jan
10 2-Jan 12-Jan 5-Jan 15-Jan
13 2-Jan 15-Jan 2-Jan 15-Jan
6
7 8
Manufacturecustom
hardware
Assemble Test
Activity8#
Legend
15 15-Jan 30-Jan 15-Jan 30-Jan
10 30-Jan 9-Jan 30-Jan 9-Jan
5 9-Jan 14-Jan 9-Jan 14-Jan
DurationES date EF dateLS date LF date
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-15
Example of Laddering UsingFinish-to-Start Relationship
Trench1/3
Trench1/3
Trench1/3
Lay pipe1/3
Lay pipe1/3
Lay pipe1/3
Refill1/3
Refill1/3
Refill1/3
AON network
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-16
Finish-to-Start Relationship
X YLag 2
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-17
Start-to-Start Relationship
ActivityM
ActivityN
ActivityP
ActivityQ
Lag 5
A B
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-18
Use of Lags to Reduce Detail
Trench1 mile
Lay pipe1 mile
Lag 3
Refill1 mile
Lag 3
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-19
Finish-to-Finish Relationship
Lag 4Prototype
Testing
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-20
Start-to-Start Relationship
Lag 3
Systemdocumentation
Testing
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-21
Combination Relationships
Lag 2
Code
Debug
Lag 4
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-22
Network Using Lags
5 B 15
00
5 10 15
10 D 25
1111
21 15 36
0 A 5
0 0
0 5 5
ES ID EF
SL SL
LS Dur LF
15 E 30
05
30 10 45
30 F 40
05
30 10 45
40 H 50
5 0
45 5 50
15 C 20
5 5
20 5 25
Legend25 G 40
110
36 4 40
Lag 5
Lag 10
Lag 10
Lag 5Lag 10
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 4-23
Hammock Activity Example
5 B 6
0
5 1 6
11 E 21
0
11 10 21
0 A 5
0
0 5 5
ES ID EF
SL
LS Dur. LF
Description
6 D 10
8
14 4 18
10 F 13
8
18 3 21
21 F 25
0
21 4 25
6 C 11
0
6 5 11
Legend5 G 13
Hammock
8
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Managing Risk
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 5-1
Risk Event Graph
Risk
High
Cost
Low
Project life cycle
Chances of risksoccurring
Cost to fixrisk event
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 5-2
Risk Assessment Matrix
Systemfreezing
Low High High Startup
Userbacklash
High Medium MediumPost
installation
Hadwaremalfunctioning
Medium High High Installation
Risk eventChance-
LMHSeverity-
LMH
Detectiondifficulty-
LMH When
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 5-3
Risk Schedules
Best-case schedule
Baseline schedule
Worst-case schedule
Actual scheduleForecast completion
schedule
10%
50%
90%
470 days
500 days
590 days
550 days300 days
Actual tracking schedule
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 5-4
Responses to Risk Matrix
Risk eventAccept, reduce,share, transfer
Contingencyplan Trigger
Systemfreezing
Reduce Reinstall OSStill frozenafter 1 hour
Userbacklash
ReduceIncrease staff
supportCall from topmanagement
Hadwaremalfunctioning
TransferOrder different
brandReplacementdoesn't work
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 5-5
Change RequestProject _________________
Originator ________________
Description of change
Install Y2K compatible chip in six computer controlled milling machines
Date _________________
Phone ________________
Y2K-Machine Dept.
CEG
3/29/
Ext. 4942
Impact Areas Baseline Impact
Deliverable # __________
Work Package # __________Cost Account # __________
Organization Unit __________
1.3M
1.313M1.31M
IS-M Dept.
Scope
Budget
Schedule
Contingency
Staff
Equipment
X
X X
X
Justification (include impact if not implemented)
Reprogramming cost is higher than estimated, and risk of old chips failing is higherthan estimated. (Eliminating reprogramming cost is -$10,000. Cost of Y2K chipsinstalled is +$15,000)
Disposition
Approve
Approve as amended
Disapprove
Deferred
XPriority
Emergency
Urgent
Routine
X
Funding Source
Mgmt. Reserve $ _____________
Budget. Reserve $ _____________
Other $ _____________
5,000.
Authorized _________________
Date ______________________
Scheduled start _________________
Scheduled finish ________________
S.P
4/3/
4/7/
5/10/
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Chapter 6
Reducing Project Time
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 6-1
Project Cost-Time Graph60
50
40
30
20
10
04 6 8 10 12 14 16
Totalcosts
Optimumcost-time
point
Directcosts
Indirectcosts
Low-costplan duration
point
Project duration
Cos
ts
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 6-2
Activity Graph
$800
600
400
200
00 5 10
Activity duration (units)
Act
ivit
y co
stCrashcost
Normalcost
Crash point
Normalpoint
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 6-3
Cost-Time Trade-Off ExampleDirect cos ts
Normal CrashAct ivity
IDSlope
Maximumcrasht ime Time Cos t Time Cost
ABCDEFG
204030253030 0
1 2 1 4 2 1 0
3 $506 80
10 6011 50
8 1005 406 70
2 $704 1609 907 1506 1604 706 70
Total direct cost $450
A
3
B
6
C
10
D
11
E
8
F
5
G
6
(a)
Time 25
A
2x
B
6
C
10
D
11
E
8
F
5
G
6
(b)
Time 24
LegendACT
DUR
Initial totaldirect cost $ 450
Totaldirect cost $ 470
Activities changed A $20
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 6-4
Cost-Time Trade-Off Example (continued)
A
2x
B
6
C
9x
D
9
E
7
F
4x
G
6
(c)
Time 21
A
2x
B
6
C
10
D
10
E
8
F
5
G
6
(a)
Time 23
A
2x
B
6
C
10
D
10
E
6
F
4x
G
6
(b)
Time 22
Totaldirect cost $ 495
Activities changed D $25
Totaldirect cost $ 525
Activities changed F $30
Totaldirect cost $ 610
Activities changed F D E $30 $25 $30
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 6-5
Summary Costs by Duration
Projectduration
Directcosts
+Indirect
costs=
Totalcosts
25 450 400 $85024 470 350 82023 495 300 79522 525 250 77521 610 200 810
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 6-6
Project Cost-Time Graph$1000
800
600
400
200
0
20 21 22 23 24 25
$775
Duration (units)
Totalindirect
cost
Totaldirectcost
Totalproject
cost
Optimumcost-time
pointC
ost
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Chapter 7
Resource Scheduling
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-1
Constraint Examples
Pour Frame Roof
Design Code Test
Technical constraints
(A)
Plan
Purchaserefreshments
ReceptionDecoratehall
Hire band
(B)
Resource constraints
Plan Hire bandDecorate
hallPurchase
refreshmentsReception(C)
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-2a
Time Constrained Network
2 B 8
2 2 2
4 6 10
2 C 6
0 2 0
2 4 6
2 D 4
6 1 6
8 2 10
0 A 2
0 2 0
0 2 2
ES ID EF
SL RES SLK
LS DUR LF
6 F 10
0 1 0
6 4 10
10 G 12
0 1 0
10 2 12
6 E 8
2 1 2
8 2 10
Legend
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-2b
Time Constrained Network
A 2 2 0 2 0 2 2
B 2 6 2 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C 2 4 2 6 0 2 2 2 2
D 1 2 2 10 6 1 1
E 1 2 6 10 2 1 1
F 1 4 6 10 0 1 1 1 1
G 1 2 10 12 0 1 1
2 2 5 5 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1Total resource load
ID RES DUR ES LF TS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 2 5 5 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 125432
1
Total resource load
Early start leveled resource profile
ES resource load chart
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-3a
Leveled Resource Schedule
A 2 2 0 2 0 2 2
B 2 6 2 10 2 X X 2 2 2 2 2 2
C 2 4 2 6 0 2 2 2 2
D 1 2 2 10 6 1 1
E 1 2 6 10 2 1 1
F 1 4 6 10 0 1 1 1 1
G 1 2 10 12 0 1 1
2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 1 1Total resource load
ID RES DUR ES LF TS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 125432
1
Leveled resource profile
Leveled resource schedule A
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-3b
Leveled Resource Schedule
A 2 2 0 2 0 2 2
B 2 6 2 10 2 X X 2 2 2 2
C 2 4 2 6 0 2 2 2 2
D 1 2 2 10 6 x x x x x x 1 1
E 1 2 6 10 2 x x 1 1
F 1 4 6 10 0 1 1 1 1
G 1 2 10 12 0
2 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 1Total resource load
ID RES DUR ES LF TS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 125432
1
Leveled resource profile
Leveled resource schedule B
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-4a
Resource Constrained Schedulethrough Period 2-3
2 B 8
2 2 2
4 6 10
2 C 6
0 2 0
2 4 6
2 D 4
6 1 6
8 2 10
0 A 2
0 2 0
0 2 2
ES ID EF
SLK RES SLK
LS DUR LF
6 F 10
0 1 0
6 4 10
10 G 12
0 1 0
10 2 12
6 E 8
2 1 2
8 2 10
Legend
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-4b
Resource Constrained Schedulethrough Period 2-3
Lev
eled
res
ourc
e pr
ofil
e
ID RES DUR ES LF TS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 2 2 0 2 0 2 2
B 2 6 2 10 2 X
C 2 4 2 6 0 2 2 2 2
D 1 2 2 10 6 1 1
E 1 2 6 10 2
F 1 4 6 10 0
G 1 2 10 12 0
2 2 3 3 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total resource load
Resource available
3 1
13 14
ES
res
ourc
e lo
ad c
hart
ID RES DUR ES LF TS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 2 2 0 2 0 2 2
B 2 6 2 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C 2 4 2 6 0 2 2 2 2
D 1 2 2 10 6 1 1
E 1 2 6 10 2 1 1
F 1 4 6 10 0 1 1 1 1
G 1 2 10 12 0 1 1
2 2 5 5 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1Total resource load
13 14
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-5a
Resource Constrained Schedulethrough Period 5-6
Res
ourc
e co
nstr
aine
d sc
hedu
leth
roug
h pe
riod
5-6
ID RES DUR ES LF TS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 2 2 0 2 0 2 2
B 2 6 10 X X X X
C 2 4 2 6 0 2 2 2 2
D 1 2 2 10 6 1 1
E 1 2 6 10 2
F 1 4 6 10 0
G 1 2 X X
2 2 3 3 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total resource load
Resource available
13 14
2 3 45 6
2 1 0-1 -2
10 11 12
12 13 14
0 -1 -2
Fin
al r
esou
rce
cons
trai
ned
sche
dule
ID RES DUR ES LF TS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 2 2 0 2 0 2 2
B 2 6 10 X X X X 2 2 2 2 2 2
C 2 4 2 6 0 2 2 2 2
D 1 2 2 10 1 1 S S
E 1 2 10 X X X X 1 1
F 1 4 6 1 1 1 1
G 1 2 X X 1 1
2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total resource load
Resource available
13 14
2 3 45 6
2 1 0-1 -2
10 11 12
12 13 14
0 -1 -2
0 1 2
10 11 12
6 7 89 10
2 1 0-1 -2
6 2
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-5b
Resource Constrained Schedulethrough Period 5-6
6 B 12
0 2 0
6 6 12
2 C 6
0 2 0
2 4 6
2 D 4
2 1 2
4 2 6
0 A 2
0 2 0
0 2 2
ES ID EF
SLK RES SLK
LS DUR LF
6 F 10
0 1 0
6 4 10
12 G 14
0 1 0
12 2 14
10 E 12
0 1 0
10 2 12
Legend
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-6b
Original Network Plan
2 6 7
8 2A 8
10 5 15
2 4 5
4 2C 4
6 3 9
4 5 9
0 2C 0
4 5 9
0 2 3
6 1A 6
6 3 9 9 8 12
0 2B 0
9 3 12
14 10 16
1 2A 1
15 2 179 7 14
1 2B 1
10 5 15
0 1 2
4 1A 4
4 2 6
0 3 4
0 2B 0
0 4 4
4 9 7
5 2A 5
9 3 12
12 11 17
0 2C 0
12 5 17
ES ID EF
SLK RES SLK
LS DUR LF
Legend
Resourcesavailable,2 each ofA, B, C
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-6b
Original Network Plan
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
S 0 6 S S S S S S
3 S 8 7
4 5 11 S S
102
1
15 16 17 18 19 20
A
B
C
Resource loading chart
ACT ES LS EF LF Slack1 0 4 2 6 42 0 6 3 9 63 0 0 4 4 04 2 6 5 9 45 4 4 9 9 06 2 10 7 15 87 9 10 14 15 18 9 9 12 12 09 4 9 7 12 510 14 15 16 17 111 12 12 17 17 0
Plan scheduleACT RES ESR LSR EFR LFR Slack
1 1A 0 0 2 2 02 1A 0 7 3 10 73 2B 0 1 4 5 14 2C 2 2 5 5 05 2C 5 5 10 10 06 2A 7 13 12 18 67 2B 13 13 18 18 08 2B 10 10 13 13 09 2A 4 10 7 13 610 2A 18 18 20 20 011 2C 13 15 18 20 2
New resource schedule
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-7
Splitting/Multitasking
Activity duration without splitting
Activity duration split into three segments—A, B, C
Activity A Activity B Activity C
Activity A Activity B Activity C
Startup Shutdown
Activity duration split with shutdown and startup
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-8
Responsibility Matrix for aMarket Research Project
Task Richard Dan Dave Linda Elizabeth
Identify target customers R S S
Develop draft questionnaire R S S
Pilot-test questionnaire R S
Finalize questionnaire R S S S
Print questionnaire R
Prepare mailing labels R
Mail questionnaires R
Receive and monitor returned questionnaires R S
Input response data R
Analyze results R S S
Prepare draft of report S R S S
Prepare final report R S
Project teamR = ResponsibleS = Supports/assists
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 7-9
Responsibility Matrix for the ComputerControlled Conveyor Belt Project
DeliverablesDesign Develop-
mentDocumen-
tationAssembly Testing Purchas-
ingQuality
assuranceManufac-
turing
Architechural design 1 2 2 3 3
Hardware specifications 2 1 2 3
Kernal specifications 1 3 3
Utilities specification 2 1 3
Hardware design 1 3 3 3
Disk drivers 3 1 2
Memory management 1 3 3
Operating system documentation 2 2 1 3
Prototypes 5 4 1 3 3 3 4
Integrated acceptance test 5 2 2 1 5 5
Organization
Legend
1 Responsible 2 Support3 Consult 4 Notification5 Approval
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Chapter 8
Organization
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 8-1
Functional Organizations
Delta Manufacturing, Inc.President
Humanresources
Finance andadministration
Marketing Engineering Manufacturing Procurement
Electronicsengineering
Softwareengineering
Mechanicalengineering
DesignReceiving &inspection
Purchasing
Customerservice
Domesticsales
Internationalsales
Fabrication Assembly TestingProductionscheduling
Projectcoordination
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 8-2
Dedicated Project Team
Zeus Electronics, Inc.President
Humanresources
Finance andadministration
Marketing Engineering Manufacturing Procurement
Project manager
Project team
Figure 8-3
Project Organization Structure
Central Engineering Systems, Inc.President
MarketingHuman
resources
Engineering Manufacturing Procurement
Finance andadministration
Legal
Alpha ProjectProject Manager
Beta ProjectProject Manager
Engineering Subcontractors
Manufacturing Procurement
Otherprojects
Otherprojects
ElectricalMechanicalSoftware
FabricationAssemblyTest
SystemsHardwareSoftware
Subcontractor XSubcontractor YSubcontractor Z
AssemblyTest
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Kusdhianto Setiawan Gadjah Mada University
Figure 8-4
Matrix Organization Structure
Zeus Electronics, Inc.President
Humanresources
Finance
Director ofprojects Engineering Manufacturing Marketing
Projectadministration
Designengineering
Electronicsengineering
Softwareengineering
Mechanicalengineering
Technicaldocumentation
Assembly Testing Quality Domesticsales
Internationalsales
Customerservice
Project Aproject
manager
Project Bproject
manager
Project Cproject
manager
1
1
1/2
2
3
1
1
1 1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1/2
1
1
1 1
1/2
2
2
1
2
Kusdhianto Setiawan
Table 8-1
Division of Project Manager and Functional Manager Responsibilities in a Matrix Structure
Project manager Negotiated issues Functional manager
What has to be done? Who will do the task? How will it be done?
When should the task bedone?
Where will the task bedone?
How much money isavailable to do the task?
Why will the task be done? How will the projectinvolvement impact normalfunctional activities?
How well has the totalproject been done?
Is the task satisfactorilycompleted?
How well has the functionalinput been integrated?
Gadjah Mada University
Kusdhianto Setiawan
Figure 8-6
Key Dimensions Defining anOrganization’s Culture
Gadjah Mada University
Job 1. Member identity Organization
Individual 2. Team emphasis Group
Task 3. Management focus People
Independent 4. Unit integration Interdependent
Loose 5. Control Tight
Low 6. Risk tolerance High
Performance 7. Reward criteria Other
Low 8. Conflict tolerance High
Means 9. Means-ends orientation Ends
Internal 10. Open-system focus External
Kusdhianto Setiawan
Figure 8-8
Cultural Dimensions of an OrganizationSupportive of Project Management
Gadjah Mada University
Job 1. Member identity
Organization
Individual 2. Team emphasis
Group
Task 3. People focus
People
Independent 4. Unit integration
Interdependent
Loose 5. Control
Tight
Low 6. Risk tolerance
High
Performance 7. Reward criteria
Other
Low 8. Conflict tolerance
High
Means 9. Means-ends orientation
Ends
Internal10. Open-system focus
External
Kusdhianto Setiawan
Figure 8-9
Organization of Product DevelopmentProjects at ORION
Gadjah Mada University
Project manager
Deputyplanning and control management
Electronicssystem engineer
Mechanicssystem engineer
Team leader
Team leader
Team leader
Team leader
Kusdhianto Setiawan
Figure 8-10
Traditional Master Plan at ORION
Gadjah Mada University
Activities/time 4-7 Years 1-4 Years
Design reviews
Design anddevelopment
Production anddelivery
ILS
SDR PDR CDR TRR PRR
Laboratory tests Environmental tests
Build production lineand test equipment
Documentation andtraining program
Training
Production and deliveries
Kusdhianto Setiawan
Figure 8-11
Proposed Project Organizationfor the Jaguar Project
Gadjah Mada University
Project manager
Deputyproduction manager
Electronicssystem engineer
Mechanicssystem engineer
Team leader
Team leader
Team leader
Team leader
Deputyplanning and control management
QAmanager
ILSmanager
Kusdhianto Setiawan
Figure 8-12
Jaguar Master Plan
Gadjah Mada University
Activities/time 3-4 Years 1-4 Years
Design reviews
Design anddevelopment
Production anddelivery
ILS
SDR PDR CDR TRR PRR
Laboratory tests Environmentaltests
Build production lineand test equipment
Documentation andtraining program
Training
Production and deliveries
Kusdhianto Setiawan
Figure A8-1
Mechanisms for SustainingOrganizational Culture
Gadjah Mada University
Methods for maintaining organizational culture
• Formal statement of principles• Top management behavior• Reactions to organizational crisis• Allocation of rewards and status• Rituals, stories, and symbols
Recruitment ofemployees whofit the culture
Organizationalculture
Removal ofemployees who
deviate fromthe culture