Suche senden
Hochladen
Majerowicz
•
1 gefällt mir
•
15,008 views
N
NASAPMC
Folgen
Technologie
Bildung
Melden
Teilen
Melden
Teilen
1 von 51
Jetzt herunterladen
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
Empfohlen
Why 85% of Decisions Made in Your Organization are Wrong and How to Fix It!
Why 85% of Decisions Made in Your Organization are Wrong and How to Fix It!
MPCA
Planning LAMP infrastructure
Planning LAMP infrastructure
David Timothy Strauss
Olav maassen risk management
Olav maassen risk management
AGILEMinds
The integrated master plan and integrated master schedule
The integrated master plan and integrated master schedule
Glen Alleman
Requirements & scope
Requirements & scope
Craig Brown
Barth simpkins
Barth simpkins
NASAPMC
Diffoot fayful
Diffoot fayful
NASAPMC
Harrison.g.poole.k
Harrison.g.poole.k
NASAPMC
Empfohlen
Why 85% of Decisions Made in Your Organization are Wrong and How to Fix It!
Why 85% of Decisions Made in Your Organization are Wrong and How to Fix It!
MPCA
Planning LAMP infrastructure
Planning LAMP infrastructure
David Timothy Strauss
Olav maassen risk management
Olav maassen risk management
AGILEMinds
The integrated master plan and integrated master schedule
The integrated master plan and integrated master schedule
Glen Alleman
Requirements & scope
Requirements & scope
Craig Brown
Barth simpkins
Barth simpkins
NASAPMC
Diffoot fayful
Diffoot fayful
NASAPMC
Harrison.g.poole.k
Harrison.g.poole.k
NASAPMC
Debbie.dusterwald
Debbie.dusterwald
NASAPMC
Backup norm.smith
Backup norm.smith
NASAPMC
Michael.aucoin
Michael.aucoin
NASAPMC
Patrick.guske.update
Patrick.guske.update
NASAPMC
John.emond
John.emond
NASAPMC
Rippe.carpio
Rippe.carpio
NASAPMC
John.olson
John.olson
NASAPMC
Grubbs teams and digital collaboration pmc2012
Grubbs teams and digital collaboration pmc2012
NASAPMC
Coonce.tom
Coonce.tom
NASAPMC
Heard
Heard
NASAPMC
Brockhurst.lane
Brockhurst.lane
NASAPMC
Hulett
Hulett
NASAPMC
Inter pech bounds
Inter pech bounds
NASAPMC
Neiberding
Neiberding
NASAPMC
M washington
M washington
NASAPMC
Wienkoop.glenn
Wienkoop.glenn
NASAPMC
Bauer.frank
Bauer.frank
NASAPMC
Mc nally
Mc nally
NASAPMC
Kirsch.mike
Kirsch.mike
NASAPMC
K.pagel.beene
K.pagel.beene
NASAPMC
C. describe a time when you took a great risk. what was the outcome.
C. describe a time when you took a great risk. what was the outcome.
Ricardo Ocampo
Vietnam Macro And Equity Market 2011 Dec22
Vietnam Macro And Equity Market 2011 Dec22
Thanh Le
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Debbie.dusterwald
Debbie.dusterwald
NASAPMC
Backup norm.smith
Backup norm.smith
NASAPMC
Michael.aucoin
Michael.aucoin
NASAPMC
Patrick.guske.update
Patrick.guske.update
NASAPMC
John.emond
John.emond
NASAPMC
Rippe.carpio
Rippe.carpio
NASAPMC
John.olson
John.olson
NASAPMC
Grubbs teams and digital collaboration pmc2012
Grubbs teams and digital collaboration pmc2012
NASAPMC
Coonce.tom
Coonce.tom
NASAPMC
Heard
Heard
NASAPMC
Brockhurst.lane
Brockhurst.lane
NASAPMC
Hulett
Hulett
NASAPMC
Inter pech bounds
Inter pech bounds
NASAPMC
Neiberding
Neiberding
NASAPMC
M washington
M washington
NASAPMC
Wienkoop.glenn
Wienkoop.glenn
NASAPMC
Bauer.frank
Bauer.frank
NASAPMC
Mc nally
Mc nally
NASAPMC
Kirsch.mike
Kirsch.mike
NASAPMC
K.pagel.beene
K.pagel.beene
NASAPMC
Andere mochten auch
(20)
Debbie.dusterwald
Debbie.dusterwald
Backup norm.smith
Backup norm.smith
Michael.aucoin
Michael.aucoin
Patrick.guske.update
Patrick.guske.update
John.emond
John.emond
Rippe.carpio
Rippe.carpio
John.olson
John.olson
Grubbs teams and digital collaboration pmc2012
Grubbs teams and digital collaboration pmc2012
Coonce.tom
Coonce.tom
Heard
Heard
Brockhurst.lane
Brockhurst.lane
Hulett
Hulett
Inter pech bounds
Inter pech bounds
Neiberding
Neiberding
M washington
M washington
Wienkoop.glenn
Wienkoop.glenn
Bauer.frank
Bauer.frank
Mc nally
Mc nally
Kirsch.mike
Kirsch.mike
K.pagel.beene
K.pagel.beene
Ähnlich wie Majerowicz
C. describe a time when you took a great risk. what was the outcome.
C. describe a time when you took a great risk. what was the outcome.
Ricardo Ocampo
Vietnam Macro And Equity Market 2011 Dec22
Vietnam Macro And Equity Market 2011 Dec22
Thanh Le
Using CFD, SPC and Kanban on UK GOV IT projects
Using CFD, SPC and Kanban on UK GOV IT projects
Valtech UK
Case Study: Using CFD, SPC and Kanban on UK Government IT projects
Case Study: Using CFD, SPC and Kanban on UK Government IT projects
Valtech UK
Smarter Planet: Airlines
Smarter Planet: Airlines
Strategy Advisory Group
Social Media Adoption
Social Media Adoption
Frank Hamm
IMCA 2009 Practice Management Survey Results
IMCA 2009 Practice Management Survey Results
Explore Atlanta
Ähnlich wie Majerowicz
(7)
C. describe a time when you took a great risk. what was the outcome.
C. describe a time when you took a great risk. what was the outcome.
Vietnam Macro And Equity Market 2011 Dec22
Vietnam Macro And Equity Market 2011 Dec22
Using CFD, SPC and Kanban on UK GOV IT projects
Using CFD, SPC and Kanban on UK GOV IT projects
Case Study: Using CFD, SPC and Kanban on UK Government IT projects
Case Study: Using CFD, SPC and Kanban on UK Government IT projects
Smarter Planet: Airlines
Smarter Planet: Airlines
Social Media Adoption
Social Media Adoption
IMCA 2009 Practice Management Survey Results
IMCA 2009 Practice Management Survey Results
Mehr von NASAPMC
Bejmuk bo
Bejmuk bo
NASAPMC
Baniszewski john
Baniszewski john
NASAPMC
Yew manson
Yew manson
NASAPMC
Wood frank
Wood frank
NASAPMC
Wood frank
Wood frank
NASAPMC
Wessen randi (cd)
Wessen randi (cd)
NASAPMC
Vellinga joe
Vellinga joe
NASAPMC
Trahan stuart
Trahan stuart
NASAPMC
Stock gahm
Stock gahm
NASAPMC
Snow lee
Snow lee
NASAPMC
Smalley sandra
Smalley sandra
NASAPMC
Seftas krage
Seftas krage
NASAPMC
Sampietro marco
Sampietro marco
NASAPMC
Rudolphi mike
Rudolphi mike
NASAPMC
Roberts karlene
Roberts karlene
NASAPMC
Rackley mike
Rackley mike
NASAPMC
Paradis william
Paradis william
NASAPMC
Osterkamp jeff
Osterkamp jeff
NASAPMC
O'keefe william
O'keefe william
NASAPMC
Muller ralf
Muller ralf
NASAPMC
Mehr von NASAPMC
(20)
Bejmuk bo
Bejmuk bo
Baniszewski john
Baniszewski john
Yew manson
Yew manson
Wood frank
Wood frank
Wood frank
Wood frank
Wessen randi (cd)
Wessen randi (cd)
Vellinga joe
Vellinga joe
Trahan stuart
Trahan stuart
Stock gahm
Stock gahm
Snow lee
Snow lee
Smalley sandra
Smalley sandra
Seftas krage
Seftas krage
Sampietro marco
Sampietro marco
Rudolphi mike
Rudolphi mike
Roberts karlene
Roberts karlene
Rackley mike
Rackley mike
Paradis william
Paradis william
Osterkamp jeff
Osterkamp jeff
O'keefe william
O'keefe william
Muller ralf
Muller ralf
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Apidays New York 2024 - The value of a flexible API Management solution for O...
Apidays New York 2024 - The value of a flexible API Management solution for O...
apidays
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
Safe Software
Data Cloud, More than a CDP by Matt Robison
Data Cloud, More than a CDP by Matt Robison
Anna Loughnan Colquhoun
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
Joaquim Jorge
Polkadot JAM Slides - Token2049 - By Dr. Gavin Wood
Polkadot JAM Slides - Token2049 - By Dr. Gavin Wood
Juan lago vázquez
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
Drew Madelung
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...
apidays
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire business
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire business
panagenda
Strategize a Smooth Tenant-to-tenant Migration and Copilot Takeoff
Strategize a Smooth Tenant-to-tenant Migration and Copilot Takeoff
sammart93
Exploring the Future Potential of AI-Enabled Smartphone Processors
Exploring the Future Potential of AI-Enabled Smartphone Processors
debabhi2
Deploy with confidence: VMware Cloud Foundation 5.1 on next gen Dell PowerEdg...
Deploy with confidence: VMware Cloud Foundation 5.1 on next gen Dell PowerEdg...
Principled Technologies
Apidays New York 2024 - Scaling API-first by Ian Reasor and Radu Cotescu, Adobe
Apidays New York 2024 - Scaling API-first by Ian Reasor and Radu Cotescu, Adobe
apidays
2024: Domino Containers - The Next Step. News from the Domino Container commu...
2024: Domino Containers - The Next Step. News from the Domino Container commu...
Martijn de Jong
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
?#DUbAI#??##{{(☎️+971_581248768%)**%*]'#abortion pills for sale in dubai@
Strategies for Landing an Oracle DBA Job as a Fresher
Strategies for Landing an Oracle DBA Job as a Fresher
Remote DBA Services
A Domino Admins Adventures (Engage 2024)
A Domino Admins Adventures (Engage 2024)
Gabriella Davis
HTML Injection Attacks: Impact and Mitigation Strategies
HTML Injection Attacks: Impact and Mitigation Strategies
Boston Institute of Analytics
TrustArc Webinar - Stay Ahead of US State Data Privacy Law Developments
TrustArc Webinar - Stay Ahead of US State Data Privacy Law Developments
TrustArc
ProductAnonymous-April2024-WinProductDiscovery-MelissaKlemke
ProductAnonymous-April2024-WinProductDiscovery-MelissaKlemke
Product Anonymous
presentation ICT roal in 21st century education
presentation ICT roal in 21st century education
jfdjdjcjdnsjd
Kürzlich hochgeladen
(20)
Apidays New York 2024 - The value of a flexible API Management solution for O...
Apidays New York 2024 - The value of a flexible API Management solution for O...
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
Data Cloud, More than a CDP by Matt Robison
Data Cloud, More than a CDP by Matt Robison
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
Polkadot JAM Slides - Token2049 - By Dr. Gavin Wood
Polkadot JAM Slides - Token2049 - By Dr. Gavin Wood
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire business
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire business
Strategize a Smooth Tenant-to-tenant Migration and Copilot Takeoff
Strategize a Smooth Tenant-to-tenant Migration and Copilot Takeoff
Exploring the Future Potential of AI-Enabled Smartphone Processors
Exploring the Future Potential of AI-Enabled Smartphone Processors
Deploy with confidence: VMware Cloud Foundation 5.1 on next gen Dell PowerEdg...
Deploy with confidence: VMware Cloud Foundation 5.1 on next gen Dell PowerEdg...
Apidays New York 2024 - Scaling API-first by Ian Reasor and Radu Cotescu, Adobe
Apidays New York 2024 - Scaling API-first by Ian Reasor and Radu Cotescu, Adobe
2024: Domino Containers - The Next Step. News from the Domino Container commu...
2024: Domino Containers - The Next Step. News from the Domino Container commu...
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
Strategies for Landing an Oracle DBA Job as a Fresher
Strategies for Landing an Oracle DBA Job as a Fresher
A Domino Admins Adventures (Engage 2024)
A Domino Admins Adventures (Engage 2024)
HTML Injection Attacks: Impact and Mitigation Strategies
HTML Injection Attacks: Impact and Mitigation Strategies
TrustArc Webinar - Stay Ahead of US State Data Privacy Law Developments
TrustArc Webinar - Stay Ahead of US State Data Privacy Law Developments
ProductAnonymous-April2024-WinProductDiscovery-MelissaKlemke
ProductAnonymous-April2024-WinProductDiscovery-MelissaKlemke
presentation ICT roal in 21st century education
presentation ICT roal in 21st century education
Majerowicz
1.
Schedule Analysis
Techniques Walter Majerowicz, MBA, PMP ASRC Aerospace Corporation NASA Goddard Space Flight Center NASA PM Challenge 2010 February 9-10, 2010 Galveston, Texas Used with permission
2.
Learning Outcomes
• This presentation will examine how schedule analysis can help project teams understand: –When will the project finish? –Where is the risk in the schedule? –Do we have enough schedule slack and margin/reserve? –Is the schedule realistic, credible and achievable? –How are we performing and what is slipping? –What can past performance tell us about the future? –How will changes impact the schedule? –How are our contractors/suppliers performing? –Have any of our assumptions changed? –How can we get done sooner, recover from this delay or workaround this problem? Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 2
3.
“When Will the
Project Finish?” Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 3
4.
Critical Path Analysis
SCS Project Schedule – at baseline Critical Path at Baseline Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 4
5.
Critical Path Analysis
SCS Project Schedule as of 10/31/08 Subsystem B Delayed Delivery threatened Negative Total Slack Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 5
6.
What is Our
Confidence in Finishing on Time? Monte Carlo 0 - Total Project : Finish Date 100% 30 Aug 10 95% 09 Aug 10 90% 03 Aug 10 85% 30 Jul 10 Schedule 80% 28 Jul 10 Cumulative Frequency 400 75% 27 Jul 10 70% 23 Jul 10 65% 22 Jul 10 60% 21 Jul 10 55% 20 Jul 10 Hits 50% 19 Jul 10 Risk 200 45% 16 Jul 10 40% 15 Jul 10 35% 14 Jul 10 30% 13 Jul 10 25% 12 Jul 10 20% 09 Jul 10 15% 07 Jul 10 Analysis 0 25 Jul 10 10% 06 Jul 10 5% 02 Jul 10 0% 23 Jun 10 Distribution (start of interval) Demonstration Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 6
7.
“Where is the
Risk in the Schedule?” Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 7
8.
Risky Business
Task 1 A Which activity is least likely Task 1 to start on time?: B A ____ Task 2 B ____ C ____ Task 1 Task 2 Why? C Task 3 (Hint: Assume all dependencies are FS) Task 4 Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 8
9.
Riskier Business •
Consider two independent activities scheduled to finish on June 10th Probability of • Both activities are needed to fulfill the delivery on-time finish = .90 milestone on June 10th • The probability of Activity A finishing on time is Activity A .90, and the probability of Activity B is .80 • What is the probability of meeting the (Finish June 10th) completion milestone on time? – .90 – .80 Probability of – .72 on-time finish = .80 – .85 – Cannot determine / insufficient data Deliver Activity B June 10th (Finish June 10th) Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 9
10.
Total Slack Trend
With Thresholds WBS 1.1.2.2 RTT B Assembly Risk Indicator 35 30 Alert Zone 1 25 Replace cracked Total Slack 20 DRX-002 Test chamber availability delay 15 Alert 10 Zone 2 Troubleshoot 5 noise anomaly 0 Alert Zone 3 -5 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug '04 '04 '04 '04 '05 '05 '05 '05 '05 '05 '05 '05 Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 10
11.
Activity Duration Sensitivity
GPM Schedule PDR Model Duration Sensitivity 000145 - Propellant Tank: GPM PDR thru Build/Test & Del... 61% 0020 - Risk 53: Design for Demise 37% 0040 - Risk SRB-2: Thermal Design Problems/Issues 27% 000064 - KaPR: PFM Fabrication and Assembly 15% 000232 - Instr I&T - DPR Instr Integ (D) 14% 000065 - KaPR: PFM Testing & Delivery to Ka/Ku DPR C... 13% 000067 - KuPR: GPM PDR thru Completion of Remaining... 13% 000249 - Obs I&T - Vibe/Acoustics Testing (P) 10% 000246 - Obs I&T - Group 2 Testing (M) 9% 000174 - Flight Gimbal Assembly & Test 9% Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 11
12.
Recognizing Schedule Gaming,
Abuse and Data Manipulation Traps – Intentionally reducing or shrinking future activity durations – Keeping two sets of schedule “books,” such as working to “early” dates and reporting to “late” dates? – Inappropriately adding or removing activities – Employing preferential sequencing – Using too many calendars – Manipulating project logic – Over-reporting progress – Over-using constraints – Misusing lags – Hiding slack Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 12
13.
“Do We Have
Enough Schedule slack and Margin/Reserve?” Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 13
14.
Free Slack, Total
Slack & Reserve Total Slack Activity 4 can be delayed 5 days before impacting the project delivery (ID#10) Free Slack Activity 5 can be delayed 35 days before impacting the start of activity 6 Schedule Reserve Planned as a “dummy activity” and allocated by the project manager to protect the schedule Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 14
15.
Total Slack Summary
Alpha Project Total Slack Summary Total Slack Summary provides a top level view of project’s slack position Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 15
16.
Funded Schedule Margin/Reserve
Trend C+DH MOD DELIVER TO LAUNCH SITE I&T START LAUNCH KDP-C PDR CDR 11 2 11 2 2 6 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 16
17.
Risk-Based Schedule Reserve
Activity Risk Impact Probability Expected Value Observatory Late Mechanical 30 days x .10 = 3 days MGSE Integration Observatory Component Vibration 45 days x .20 = 9 days damage Test Observatory Noise 24 days 40 days x .60 = EMI Test anomaly Thermal Instrument 80 days x .50 = 40 days Vacuum failure Test Total Estimated Schedule Reserve 76 days Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 17
18.
Using Schedule Risk
Analysis to Determine Schedule Reserve 0 - Total Project : Finish Date 100% 30 Aug 10 95% 09 Aug 10 Desired 90% 03 Aug 10 Confidence 85% 30 Jul 10 80% 28 Jul 10 Cumulative Frequency 400 Level 75% 27 Jul 10 70% 23 Jul 10 65% 22 Jul 10 60% 21 Jul 10 55% 20 Jul 10 Hits 50% 19 Jul 10 Potential 45% 16 Jul 10 200 Reserve 40% 15 Jul 10 35% 14 Jul 10 30% 13 Jul 10 25% 12 Jul 10 20% 09 Jul 10 15% 07 Jul 10 10% 06 Jul 10 5% 02 Jul 10 0 0% 23 Jun 10 25 Jul 10 Distribution (start of interval) Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 18
19.
“Is the Schedule
Realistic, Credible and Achievable?” Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 19
20.
SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
Yes No Criterion Description Schedule Assessment 1. ___ ___ Does the IMS reflect the total scope of work? 2. ___ ___ Is the correct WBS element identified for each task and milestone in the IMS? Checklist 3. ___ ___ Is the IMS used by all levels of management for project implementation and control? 4. ___ ___ Do all tasks/milestones have interdependencies identified to reflect a credible logical sequence? 5. ___ ___ Are task durations reasonable, measureable, and at appropriate level of detail for effective management? 6. ___ ___ Does the IMS include all contract and/or designated management control milestones? Source: 7. ___ ___ Does IMS reflect accurate current status & credible start/finish forecasts for all to-go tasks and milestones? NASA Schedule 8. ___ ___ Has the IMS been resource loaded and are assigned Management Handbook resources reasonable and available? 9. ___ ___ Is the critical path identifiable and determined by the calculated IMS logic network? 10. ___ ___ Is the critical path credible? http://evm.nasa.gov/handbooks.html 11. ___ ___ Has a Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) been conducted on the IMS within the last three months? 12. ___ ___ Has adequate schedule margin been included and clearly defined within the IMS? 13. ___ ___ Has the IMS content been baselined and is it adequately controlled? 14. ___ ___ Is there an excessive & invalid use of task constraints and relationship leads/lags? 15. ___ ___ Are right task & resource calendars used in the IMS? Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 20
21.
Activity Duration Rules-of-Thumb
• Durations should be estimated by the person responsible for the activity (when feasible) • Maximize the use of the Expected Value/3-Point Estimate Method to characterize uncertainty/risk in the activity • Compare estimated durations to actual durations from similar activities on previous projects (when available) • Review duration estimates with experts who have experience with similar types of work (sanity check) • Near-to-intermediate term durations should not exceed one month – Status can easily be determined in one or two accounting periods • “Long” durations render percentage complete determination little more than guesswork • Duration estimates should not be – Padded by the estimator to hide reserve – Reduced by the estimator to “take a challenge” or “buy in” – Arbitrarily cut by management • Always consider availability of key resources Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 21
22.
Historic Schedule Analysis
• Archive “As Planned” and “As Built” schedules for future comparison to new project schedules • Comparisons can be made between your project schedule and similar projects: – At the detailed or summary activity level – Duration of lifecycle phases – Elapsed time between major milestones Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 22
23.
Horizontal Integration Traceability
Check XYZ Total Project Work Breakdown Structure 1.0 Project 2.0 4.0 Science 6.0 8.0 Launch 10.0 System Mgt. System Engr. /Technology Spacecraft Vehicle/Services I&T 3.0 5.0 7.0 Mission 9.0 Ground SM & A Payload Ops System System 2.2.2.3 Power 6.2.3 Solar Array Design 10.4.1.2. Integrate Reqt. Definition Solar Arrays to S/C 6.2.4 Solar Array Build 6.2.5 Solar Array Test S/A S/A Design Build Integ. S/As Activity 102 Activity 103 to S/C Specify Power Rqts. Activity 406 Activity 101 S/A Test Logic Network Diagram Activity 104 Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 23
24.
NEW
Over all Rating Project Name: Pr oject XYZ 1.4 R Contractor: ACME Engineering F ile Type: MS Pr oject Current Schedule Status Current Start (earliest activity Early Start date) 1/1/2005 Current Finish (latest activity Early Finish date) 3/16/2008 Schedule Approximate Remaining Work Days 722 Is schedule externally linked to other schedules? N Status Date 6/15/2005 Task & Milestone Count (excl. Summary Tasks) Count % of Total Total Tasks & Milestones 192 Health/Integrity Completed Tasks & Milestones 13 7% To Go Tasks & Milestones 179 93% Logic (excl. Summary & Started/Completed Tasks) Tasks & Milestones Without Predecessors 75 42% R Tasks & Milestones Without Successors 73 41% R Check Constraints (other than ASAP) and Deadlines 102 57% R Summaries with Logic Ties ** 1 1% G Tasks & Milestones Needing Updates 21 12% R Actuals after Status Date 2 1% Y Tasks marked as Milestones (have Duration > 0) 0 0% G Demonstration Additional Schedule Infor mation Tasks with No Finish Ties 20 11% Recurring Tasks 0 0% Tasks & Milestones with Estimated Durations 15 8% Schedule traceable to WBS (Y/N) Yes Realistic Critical Path(s) (Y/N) No Schedule Baselined (Y/N) No Resource Loaded (Y/N) No Tasks & Milestones with 10 days or less TF 1 1% Tasks with Total Float > 25% of Rem Dur 148 83% Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 24
25.
Vertical Integration Traceability
Check 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Master C & DH Schedule ACS Power J F MAM J J A S O N D J Vertical Intermediate / Battery Schedule Summary Integration Solar Array Schedule PIU Detail Work Schedule Package Activities PIU Detail Schedule Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 25
26.
Project Control Milestone*
Method “S” Curve Check 70 60 50 “S” Curve = Realism *Baseline Look for: Early Finish Slow start Dates 40 Ramp up Level off Baseline 30 20 10 0 Oct '05 Nov '05 Dec '05 Jan '06 Feb '06 Mar '06 Apr '06 May '06 Jun '06 Jul '06 Aug '06 Sep '06 Cum Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 Cum Actual Cum Forecast Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 26
27.
Resource Leveling
Initial Critical Path Method Schedule Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 27
28.
Resource Leveling
Resources are Allocated or “Loaded” into Activities Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 28
29.
Resource Leveling
Initial Resource Profile Apr 16, '06 Apr 23, '06 M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W 300% Mechanical 250% Tech II Capacity: 200% 1 tech 150% 1-8-5 100% 50% Peak Units: Peak Units 300% 300% 200% 200% 200% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Mech Tech II Overallocated: Allocated: The shortage or over-commitment of resources is determined by profiling the needed resources and comparing them to their availability or capacity. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 29
30.
Resource Leveling
“Leveled” Resource Profile Apr 16, '06 Apr 23, '06 Apr 30, '06 M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F 100% 80% Original 11 work day 60% plan (before leveling) 7 additional 40% work days are needed 20% (after leveling) Peak Units: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Mech Tech II Overallocated: Allocated: Management decides to “level” or smooth the “Mechanical Tech II” resource allocation to fit the available capacity of one MTII. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 30
31.
Resource Leveling
Resource – Constrained Schedule Before Leveling After Leveling “Leveling” the resources results in a more realistic schedule, but delivery may not happen on 4/25/06 as anticipated. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 31
32.
“How are we
Performing and what is Slipping?” Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 32
33.
Activity Plan vs.
Actual Report Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 33
34.
Current and Forecast
PCM Variances 70 60 (Baseline and forecast are Early 50 Plan vs. Forecast Baseline Quantity of PCMs Variance Finish dates) 40 Forecast 30 Plan vs. Actual Variance 20 Actual 10 0 Oct '05 Nov '05 Dec '05 Jan '06 Feb '06 Mar '06 Apr '06 May '06 Jun '06 Jul '06 Aug '06 Sep '06 Cum Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 Cum Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16 Cum Forecast 16 27 39 56 65 Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 34
35.
PCM Performance Ratio
Analysis SCS Project Control Milestone Performance: As of May 2006 2005 2006 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov CUM Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 CUM Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16 TO DATE 16 milestones ÷ 8 months = 2 per month (actual rate) 45 milestones ÷ 8 months = 5.6 per month (baseline rate) Cumulative Efficiency to Date: 16 ÷ 45 = .36 0% 50% 100% Less Efficient More Efficient So far, schedule efficiency is .36 - the NBT team is accomplishing, on average, about one third of the planned milestones. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 35
36.
What About the
Schedule Performance Index from Earned Value Management? Schedule Performance Index Formula: SPI = Earned Value (cum) Planned Value (cum) NBT example: SPI = $34M = .40 $85M SPI = .40 PCM Performance Index = .36 For every dollar of work 36% of the planned milestones planned, 40 cents of work is have been accomplished being accomplished Look for an approximate correlation between the two values and investigate reasons for significant differences. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 36
37.
“What Can Past
Performance Tell Us About the Future?” Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 37
38.
Linear Projection of
PCM Actual Performance 70 60 (Baseline and forecast are Early 50 Baseline Quantity of PCMs Finish dates) 40 Forecast 30 20 Actual 10 0 Oct '05 Nov '05 Dec '05 Jan '06 Feb '06 Mar '06 Apr '06 May '06 Jun '06 Jul '06 Aug '06 Sep '06 Cum Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 Cum Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16 Cum Forecast 16 27 39 56 65 Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 38
39.
Forecast-to-Complete Based on
PCM Performance-to-Date SCS Project Control Milestone Performance: As of May 2006 2005 2006 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov CUM Baseline 1 2 3 6 11 22 32 45 53 59 62 65 CUM Actual 1 3 7 7 8 9 12 16 TO DATE FORECAST BASED ON PERFORMANCE 16 PCMs completed Performance to date = 2 per month 8 months planned 49 PCMs remaining to finish (65-16 = 49) 16 ÷ 8 = 2 PCMs per month 49 ÷ 2 = 24.5 months ! Based on the historic rate of performance of 2 PCMs per month, NBT will not finish for another 24.5 months – 20.5 months later than the baseline schedule. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 39
40.
11/02/07
PCM Completion Index Electronics Module Milestone Completion 1.20 Performance Index Performance Actual M/S = 1.10 Index Planned M/S 1.00 PI past 18 Actuals = = 19% .90 5 wks 97 Planned . 80 Projection Approx. 5 mos. Remaining to EM del. to SEIT PCM Completion Index .70 10/26/07 – 03/28/08 5 mos = 26.3 mos. to EM delivery .60 .19 Current Performance 5 mos .50 = 12.5 mos. to EM delivery .40 Performance .40 5 mos = 8.3 mos. to EM delivery .60 Performance .30 5 mos = 6.25 mos. to EM delivery .20 .80 Performance 5 mos = 5 mos. to EM delivery .10 1.00 Performance .00 Mar 07 Apr 07 May 07 Jun 07 Jul 07 Aug 07 21 28 05 12 19 26 02 09 16 23 30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 01 08 15 Sept 07 Oct 07 Nov 07 Dec 07 Jan 08 Feb 08 Month/Week Mar 07 Apr 07 May 07 Jun 07 Jul 07 Aug 07 21 28 05 12 19 26 02 09 16 23 30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 01 08 15 Baseline Monthly/wkly Finishes 48 58 82 54 42 Re- B/L 130 23 33 23 14 8 Actual Monthly/wkly in 44 26 28 36 14 130 3 5 5 4 1 Finishes process % Complete 92% 45% 34% 67% 33% 100%13% 15% 22% 29% 13% Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 40
41.
Delivery Date Trend
vs. Need Date Trend GRS Delivery Trend As of: December 31, 2007 2011 Jan Forecast I&T Need Date Forecast Delivery Date 2010 Dec Instrument I&T Sequence Change 2010 Nov Detector Problem 2010 Oct Subcontract CCAS T/V Chamber Re-Certification 2010 Sept Facility Move to 2010 Denver Aug 2010 Jul Contract J F M A M J J A S O N D Award ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 Month End Status Date Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 41
42.
“How Will Changes
Impact the Schedule?” Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 42
43.
NOAA M-N’ Integration
& Test Summary Schedule As of 3/31/01 *Based on Preliminary LMMS Rev S Schedule “What-If” the launch was delayed to 6/30/02? Foot Notes: 1. A303 Removal; Installation of Mass Models* 2. A303 Re-Integration & IPF/DET* 6. A303 Installation on N’ 5/13/01 3. SEM & SBUV* Removal 7. SBUV Delivery 7/6/01 * = Not yet in LMMS Master Schedule 4. SEM & SBUV* Re-Integration 8. SARP/ADCS Delivery 4/30/02 5. SARR Delivery 6/15/01 9. SARP & ADCS Integration* Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 43
44.
NOAA M-N’ Integration
& Test Summary Schedule: 6/30/02 M Launch *Based on Preliminary LMMS Rev S Schedule Possible delays in completing remaining Spacecraft + EOC extension Foot Notes: 1. SEM, SBUV, AVHRR & H303 Removal 6. SEM & SBUV* Re-Integration 2. SEM, SBUV, AVHRR & H303 Re-Integration 7. SARP & ADCS Software Upgrades* 3. A303 Removal; Installation of Mass Model* 8. SARP/ADCS Delivery 4/30/02 4. A303 Re-Integration & IPF/DET* 9. SARP & ADCS Integration* 5. SEM & SBUV* Removal * = Not yet in LMMS Master Schedule Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 44
45.
NOAA-M Launch From
VAFB, CA – 6/24/02 Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 45
46.
“What-If” Analysis of
Schedule Confidence Level GPM Core LRD: Schedule Confidence Level Comparison GPM Schedule PDR Model - Core Launch Readiness Date with Discrete Risks GPM Schedule PDR Model - Core Launch Readiness Date+Titanium Tank & Controlled Re-entry Variation: 33.3 days 100% 80% 26/Aug/13 24/Jul/13 Cumulative Probability 60% 40% 20% 0% 06/May/13 25/Jun/13 14/Aug/13 03/Oct/13 22/Nov/13 11/Jan/14 02/Mar/14 Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 46
47.
“How Are Our
Contractors/Suppliers Performing?” The schedule analysis techniques described today also apply to your contractors/suppliers Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 47
48.
Critical Parts Status
Monitoring OIM Instrument Critical Parts Status As of: May 29, 2009 Part Vendor EM Proto-Flight FM-2 Spare Backplane Emerald MFG Phase Lock Oscillator Malvern DROS Paratech Harness TVC Phaser Interspace PWA General Avionics Power Converter GOULD I/O Controller PWA General Avionics Enclosure Bell Machining Real Time Clock PWA General Avionics ONC Filters Spellman Filter Co. Late (Major Late (Potential Received On Schedule Impact to I&T Impact to I&T) Anticipated) Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 48
49.
“Have Any Schedule
Assumptions Changed?” • Assumptions are documented in: – Activity constraints – Dependencies/logic – Activity durations – Leads and lags – Calendars – Resources Periodically re-examine your schedule assumptions to determine if they have changed. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 49
50.
“How Can We
Get Done Sooner, Recover from this Delay or Workaround this Problem?” Approach Description Schedule compression technique in which resources are added (or Crashing diverted from non-critical activities) to critical path activities in a way that accomplishes the work faster at the least incremental cost Schedule compression technique in which the logic of activities Fast Tracking normally performed in sequence is modified so some or all are of the activities are performed in parallel, saving time Examine changes to activity relationships which offset the impact of Alternative Project Logic delays or support an earlier project completion date Resource vs. Free Slack Trade- Examines the effect of temporarily diverting resources from non- Off Analysis critical path activities with free slack to critical path activities Allocate Reserve Use schedule reserve to absorb the impact of schedule delays Descopes Removal of scope from the project and schedule while still meeting the project’s objectives Replan / “Rebaseline” Establish a new plan for the remaining effort Evaluation of descope options, alternate work flows, recovery “What-If” Analysis approaches, workaround plans, reserve allocation, additional resources, etc. Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 50
51.
Thank you.
Walt Majerowicz, MBA, PMP ASRC Aerospace Corporation walt.majerowicz@nasa.gov walt.majerowicz@gmail.com 301-286-5622 Copyright © 2009 by Walter Majerowicz 51
Jetzt herunterladen