Acumen has completed the first leg of the World Tour. This presentation is an in-depth overview of Acumen's solutions, as well as several Fuse use cases from Fuse clients

1. //
Acumen Fuse World Tour
2012

2. // 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

3. // Dr. Dan Patterson, PMP
President and CEO, Acumen
◦ 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

4. Realistic Scheduling
// Acumen
Proven Project Analytics // S1 The Base
// S2 Critiqued
◦ Project Management Software Company // S3 Risk-Adjusted
◦ Insight into challenges & use of // S4 Optimized
analytics to overcome them // S5 Team-Aligned
◦ Core Concepts: Product Offerings
1. Project success requires a sound plan Acumen Fuse®
2. Planning requires risk consideration Risk Workshops
Software Training

5. // Schedule Maturity Framework
Acumen S1 > S5
6
• Schedule
Basis
S1
• Owner/contractor
schedule
5
• Cri/qued
Schedule
S2
• Ensure
structural
integrity
4
Chance
of
Sucess
• Risk-­‐Adjusted
Schedule
3
S3
• Account
for
risk/uncertainty
2
• Op/mized
Target
Scenarios
S4
• Schedule
accelera>on
1
• Team
Validated
Scenario
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
S5
• Buy-­‐in
on
op>miza>on
Maturity
Level
Measure quality through the Fuse Schedule Index™

6. // Case Studies
The benefits of Fuse
1. Owner/contractor alignment [S1>S2] Subcontractors
Contractors
2. Bidding competitiveness [S1>S2] Owners
3. Acceleration/risk reduction [S3>S5] 3rd
Party
Joint
Venture
Assessors
4. Performance tracking
5. Dispute resolution
• All leads to:
6. Portfolio analysis • More realistic, achievable plans
• Many X faster/easier than manual approach
May 16, 2012

7. // Acumen Fuse Platform
Enterprise Project Analysis
Metric
Analyzer
◦ Fuse: analytics platform
Logic
◦ Improves schedule quality Analyzer
◦ Insight into performance Forensic
Analyzer
◦ Fuse 360: goal-based acceleration Schedule
Cleanser
◦ Schedule Acceleration
Schedule
◦ Decision-support Accelerator
May 16, 2012

8. // Measuring Schedule Quality
The Fuse Schedule Index™

9. // Better Planning Drives Project Success
Proven Correlation
100%
90%
Probability
of
On-­‐Time
Comple/on
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fuse
Schedule
Index™

10. // Metric Analysis
Slice & Dice
Benefit:
" Pinpoint shortcomings
" Project characteristics
" Slice and dice
About:
" 300+ metrics
" Percentage: context
" Threshold: acceptability
May 16, 2012

11. // Types of Project Metrics
Fuse Metric Libraries
Schedule
Cost
Performance
Characteris>cs
Earned
Value
Risk
• Logic
• Overrun
• Status
• Level
of
detail
• CPI/SPI
• Exposure
• Float
• Capacity
• Completed
• Constrained
• Trending
• Hot
spots
• Dura>on
• Burn
rates
• Delayed
• Riding
Data
• Earned
• Hidden
paths
Date
schedule
• Project management best practices
• Industry/corporate standards: PMI, AACE, NDIA
• Fuse-specific: Logic Density™, Hotspot, Redundancy
• Compliance: DCMA 14 Point, DoD
• Create your own!

12. // Customizable Metrics
Fuse Metric Editor

13. // Acumen-Specific Metrics
Advanced Project Insight
Finish
Insufficient
Logic
Logic
Compliance™
Detail™
Density™
Hotspot™
• Accurate
• Ac>vity
V
• Measure
of
• Timely
start?
measure
of
project
dura>on
complexity/
performance
completeness
Milestone
Broad
Risk
Float
Ra>o™
Redundancy
Ra>o™
Range
• Degree
of
Index™
• Detail
V
• Check
for
flexibility
per
• Non-­‐needed
repor>ng
erroneous
risk
day
of
work
logic
input

14. // Logic Density™
Integrity Check
◦ Measure of complexity & soundness
◦ Dual-band threshold: 2 to 6…
◦ Determine Logic Hotspots™ in schedule
◦ Trending: determine timing of shortcomings
More definition
needed

15. // Fuse Schedule Cleanser™
Actionable Insight

16. 1
// Project Forensics 6
Insight into Schedule Cleanse
May 16, 2012

17. // Claims Analysis
Insight into project variances
◦ 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
May 16, 2012

18. // Reporting
Publish Analysis Results
Executive Analyst Dashboard! API &
Briefing! Report! • Interactive Custom
• Summary of • To do list! charts & Reports"
graphs"
analysis • Automation
results! of existing
reports"
May 16, 2012

19. // Integration
Schedule, Cost, Risk, Performance, EV
Asta
Cobra
Open
Prism
Plan
G2
P3/P6
PRA
MS
Excel/
Project
XML
Na>ve
tool
not
May 16, 2012
required

20. // Case Study #1
Owner/contractor Alignment
• 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

21. // Case Study #1
Fuse Modules
◦ 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 Demo

22. // Case Study #1
Owner/contractor Alignment
• 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

23. // Acumen Cloud™
Project Benchmarking
◦ 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!

24. // Acumen Cloud™
Architecture
Knowledge
Base
Fuse 3.1
Dynamic Cloud
Libraries
Client-based
analysis Benchmarking

25. // Acumen Cloud
The Fuse Schedule Index™

26. // Case Study #2
Bidding Competitiveness
• 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™

27. // Case Study #2
Fuse modules
◦ Importing multiple scheduling platforms
◦ Timeline view
◦ Cost/duration comparison
◦ Driving logic analyzer
◦ Acumen Cloud benchmarking
// Fuse Demo

28. //

29. //

30. //

31. //

32. //

33. //

34. //

35. //

36. //

37. //

38. //

39. //

40. // Case Study #2
Bidding Competitiveness
• 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!

41. Realistic Scheduling
// Case Study #3
Schedule Acceleration/Risk Reduction // S1 The Base
// S2 Critiqued
◦ GasCom // S3 Risk-Adjusted
◦ LNG Pipeline & Facility Owner
// S4 Optimized
◦ Early FEED stage
// S5 Team-Aligned
◦ Project Details
◦ Readying for sanction approval
◦ Expected First Gas Date: Dec. 2013
◦ Gas sales contract already established
◦ Using Primavera P6

42. Realistic Scheduling
// S1 > S2
Schedule Review // S1 The Base
// S2 Critiqued
◦ Sanction Board Requirements // S3 Risk-Adjusted
◦ Risk-adjusted forecast P75 // S4 Optimized
◦ Fuse Schedule Index 75+ // S5 Team-Aligned
◦ Project Status
◦ S1 showing Dec 13 first gas
◦ Risk assessment not yet conducted

43. // S1 > S2 Schedule Critique
Sound Basis of Schedule
◦ 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
May 16, 2012

44. // Removal of Logic Redundancy
Simplification of Schedule
8%
redundancy
Removal of redundancy led to a cleaner, more robust schedule

45. Realistic Scheduling
// S1 > S2
Summary // S1 The Base
// S2 Critiqued
◦ S2 First Gas date: May 2014 // S3 Risk-Adjusted
S1: Dec 2013 5
months
S2: May 2014 // S4 Optimized
// S5 Team-Aligned
◦ Schedule Critique Details:
◦ Missing Logic was added
◦ Lags converted to activities
◦ Float analysis
◦ Showed padding of early activities

46. // Float Analysis
GasCom
◦ S1 showed high float in early stage of project
◦ S2 resolved schedule showed the opposite
◦ Early acceleration opportunity went away
Originally perceived opportunity
for making up lost time through Resolved schedule not
60
float absorption in early stage of offering early stage schedule
40
project acceleration
20
0
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2011
2011
Q1
Q2
2011
2011
Q3
2012
2012
Q4
Q1
2012
2012
Q2
Q3
2013
2013
Q4
2013
Q1
Q2
2013
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
S1
Average
Float
S2
Average
Float
2014
2014

47. Realistic Scheduling
// S2 > S3
Risk Analysis // S1 The Base
// S2 Critiqued
◦ Objective: // S3 Risk-Adjusted
◦ Determine a P75 First Gas date
// S4 Optimized
◦ Conducted Risk Workshop
// S5 Team-Aligned
Schedule
Risk
Events
Uncertainty

48. // GasCom Perception of Risk Exposure
Risk Inputs & Outputs
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%
70%
60%
Team
Percep>on
50%
Actual
Risk
Hotspots
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

49. // Risk Insight
Risk Inputs
Aggressive
Conserva>ve
Broad
Risk
Range
• Skew
to
the
right
• Skew
to
the
lef
• Range
<>
dura>on
Ques>onable
No
Risk
Average
Risk
Range
• Missed
ranging
Range
• Accidently
includes
risk
• Degree
of
uncertainty
events
No
upside
No
Downside
Wrong
• Can
only
be
later
• Can
only
be
earlier
• Inputs
don’t
align

50. //

51. // Risk Insight
Risk Exposure
High
cri>cality
Hidden
cri>cal
Risk
Hotspots™
• Risk
indicator
paths
• Risky
&
complex
• Unique
insight
logic
Schedule
risk
High
Con>ngency
Average
Risk
drivers
• How
much
buffer
exposure
• True
risk
metric
needed?
• Risk
Trending/path

52. //

53. Realistic Scheduling
// S2 > S3
Summary // S1 The Base
// S2 Critiqued
◦ P75 risk-adjusted First Gas: Oct 2014 // S3 Risk-Adjusted
◦ 10 months later than board expectations
// S4 Optimized
S1: S2: S3: // S5 Team-Aligned
Dec 2013 5
May 2014 10
Oct 2014
◦ Identified key risk hot spots
◦ Long Lead procurement items
◦ Hidden path identified
◦ Driven by land acquisition delaying
pipeline early works

54. Realistic Scheduling
// S3 > S4
Getting back to Dec 2013 // S1 The Base
// S2 Critiqued
// S3 Risk-Adjusted
◦ Risk Mitigation:
// S4 Optimized
◦ Response plan identified for key risks
// S5 Team-Aligned
◦ Response plans added to schedule
◦ Assessed cost/benefit of mitigation
◦ $100MM investment to save 1 month

55. Realistic Scheduling
// S3 > S4
Getting back to Dec 2013 // S1 The Base
// S2 Critiqued
◦ Schedule Acceleration details: // S3 Risk-Adjusted
◦ LNG Pipeline ready for hookup: Feb 13 // S4 Optimized
◦ LNG Facility ready to receive gas: Nov 13 // S5 Team-Aligned
◦ Focus needed:
◦ Accelerating the LNG facility
◦ Could afford to slow down pipeline/
field work by months…

56. // LNG Facility
Acceleration Criteria Set
◦ Criteria set drives acceleration
◦ Reduce duration LNG
Facility
◦ More resources
Script
Objec/ve
◦ Changed calendars “accelerate
Facility
by
6
◦ Contractor incentive months”
Step
1
Step
2
Step
3
◦ Delay Train 2 Accelerate
Delay
Train
Introduce
6
Jeoy
2
ac>vi>es
day
working
construc>on
week/larger
camp

57. // How did this work?
Fuse 360 Acceleration
◦ CPM simulation
◦ Critical path focus
◦ Incremental push
◦ Prioritize
◦ Earliest/latest
◦ Longest durations
◦ Least resistance

58. Realistic Scheduling
// S3 > S4 > S5
Summary // S1 The Base
// S2 Critiqued
◦ LNG Facility: // S3 Risk-Adjusted
◦ Accelerated sufficiently
// S4 Optimized
◦ No longer the driving path
// S5 Team-Aligned
◦ 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

59. // GasCom Case Study
The Result
◦ Fully vetted, bought-into schedule
◦ Risk-adjusted
◦ LNG Facility accelerated to align with pipeline
◦ Mitigation plan sponsored by board
◦ Sanction awarded!
S5: Mitigated
Dec 1 2013
P75 S4: Feb 2014
S4: Accelerated S1: Target 1st Gas S2: Resolved Schedule S3: Risk-Adjusted
Aug 1 2013 Dec 1 2013 May 1 2014 Oct 1 2014

60. 6
// GasCom First Gas Dates 0
Evolution of Schedule Model
10
P75
Schedule
Delay
From
Dec
2013
1st
Gas
(months)
9
8
7
6
Resolved, risk-
10
5
adjusted,
accelerated,
4
mitigated
3
5
2
2 0
1
0
0
S1
-­‐
base
S2
-­‐
resolved
S3
-­‐
risk-­‐adjusted
S4
-­‐
accelerated
S5
-­‐
mi>gated
Scenario
May 16, 2012

61. // Case Study #3
Fuse Modules
ü Float analysis
ü Risk Metrics
ü Fuse 360
// Fuse 360 Demo

62. // Acceleration Efficiency™
Measure of Acceleration Effort
Example
1
Example
2
◦ 2 day project acceleration ◦ 2 day project acceleration
◦ Requires 2 days of reduction ◦ Requires 2 days of reduction
◦ Acceleration Efficiency =2/2 100% ◦ Acceleration Efficiency=2/3 67%
2 day activity
reduction 2 day activity
reduction
1 day activity
3 reduction
2 day project 2 day project
acceleration acceleration

63. // Case Study #4: Measuring Project Performance
Baseline Compliance™
◦ 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
May 16, 2012

64. // Baseline Compliance Index™
Examines
how
many
ac>vi>es
fell
within
the
expected
repor>ng
period

65. // Developing Baseline Compliance Index

66. // Finish Compliance Index™
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
May 16, 2012

67. //

68. //

69. // Better Planning Drives Project Success
Proven Correlation
100%
90%
Probability
of
On-­‐Time
Comple/on
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fuse
Schedule
Index™

70. //

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