//

// Meet or Exceed Schedule Expectations through Intelligent Acceleration

Dr. Dan Patterson PMP// CEO Acumen

May 7 2012

//

// Acumen

◦  Project Management Software

◦  Oracle Primavera partner

◦  Insight into challenges & use of analytics to overcome them

◦  Core Concepts: 1.  Project success requires a sound plan

2.  Forecast accuracy 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

May 10, 2012 2

//

// 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™

May 10, 2012 3

//

// Schedule Quality Measurement

◦  Legacy ◦  duration, constraints, excessive lags,

negative float ◦  Industry Standards

◦  DCMA 14 Point Assessment ◦  NDIA GASP/ GAO

◦  Acumen Metrics ◦  Logic Density™ ◦  Insufficient Detail™

May 10, 2012 4

Metric Analysis

//

// Acumen Schedule 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  

//

// Schedule Index™ Measure of Quality

May 10, 2012 6

//

// 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 10, 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 10, 2012

//

//

//

// Quality Planning Truly Drives Success

0%  

10%  

20%  

30%  

40%  

50%  

60%  

70%  

80%  

90%  

100%  

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

Pro

babilit

y of

On-T

ime C

om

ple

tion

Fuse Schedule Index™

May 10, 2012 12

//

// Acumen Fuse® Software Demonstration Case Study

//

// Case Study

•  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

◦  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

15

Realistic Scheduling

Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

May 10, 2012

//

// 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

Realistic Scheduling

Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

16 May 10, 2012

//

// 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 10, 2012 17

//

// GasCom Logic Density™

◦  Determine Logic Hotspots™ in schedule

◦  Level of detail was lacking towards the end of the project – mainly around interfaces & integration

Planning Consistency

May 10, 2012

More  defini>on  needed  

18

//

// 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

Realistic Scheduling

Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

5 months S2: May 2014 S1: Dec 2013

May 10, 2012 20

//

// 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

May 10, 2012 21

//

// S2 > S3

◦  Objective: ◦  Determine a P75 First Gas date

◦  Conducted Risk Workshop

Risk Analysis

Realistic Scheduling

Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

Uncertainty  

Risk  Events  

Schedule  

May 10, 2012 22

//

// 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%

May 10, 2012 23

//

//

May 10, 2012 24

//

//

◦  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

Realistic Scheduling

Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

S1: Dec 2013

S2: May 2014

5  S3: Oct 2014 10  

May 10, 2012 25

//

//

◦  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

Realistic Scheduling

Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

May 10, 2012 26

//

//

◦  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

Realistic Scheduling

Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

May 10, 2012 27

//

// 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  Jefy  construc>on  

Step  2  Delay  Train  2  ac>vi>es  

Step  3  Introduce  6  day  working  week/larger  camp  

May 10, 2012 28

//

// How did this work?

◦  CPM simulation

◦  Critical path focus

◦  Incremental push

◦  Prioritize ◦  Earliest/latest

◦  Longest durations

◦  Least resistance

Fuse 360 Acceleration

May 10, 2012 29

//

//

◦  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

Realistic Scheduling

Critiqued

The Base

Risk-Adjusted

Optimized

Team-Aligned // S5

// S4

// S3

// S2

// S1

May 10, 2012 30

//

// 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

//

// How did this work?

◦  CPM simulation

◦  Critical path focus

◦  Incremental push

◦  Prioritize

◦  Earliest/latest

◦  Longest durations

◦  Least resistance

Fuse 360 Acceleration

//

// 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  

//

// Q&A

//

//

More information: White papers: www.projectacumen.com Software Trial: www.projectacumen.com/trial Twitter: @projectacumen Email: info@projectacumen.com