W5_MFO_ OmniClass and 3D WBS on Gas Metering System Installation

1.      Problem Recognition, Definition and Evaluation

A company will install Ultrasonic Gas Metering Station for our project. Is the use of OmniClass 3D WBS can be applied to this project?

2.      Development of the Feasible Alternatives

OmniClass is a means of organizing and retrieving information specifically designed for the construction industry. It consists of 15 hierarchical tables, each of which represents a different facet of construction information or entries on it can be combined with entries on other tables to classify more complex subjects. (OmniClass, 2014)

3D WBS is based on three main dimensions: Zones Breakdown Structure (ZBS), Products Breakdown Structure (PBS) and Activity Breakdown Structure (ABS).

Fig 1. 3D WBS

3.      Development of the Outcomes for Each Alternative

The 15 inter-related OmniClass tables are: (OmniClass, 2014)

  1. Table 11    : Construction Entities by Function
  2. Table 12    : Construction Entities by Form
  3. Table 13    : Spaces by Function
  4. Table 14    : Spaces by Form
  5. Table 21    : Elements (includes Designed Elements)
  6. Table 22    : Work Results
  7. Table 23    : Products
  8. Table 31    : Phases
  9. Table 32    : Services
  10. Table 33    : Disciplines
  11. Table 34    : Organizational Roles
  12. Table 35    : Tools
  13. Table 36    : Information
  14. Table 41    : Materials
  15. Table 49    : Properties

The tables above can be described in terms of the 3D WBS models as follows:

Fig 2. 3D WBS Cubes and Omniclass Table

4.      Selection of a Criterion

Characteristics of the WBS:

  1. WBS defines output
  2. WBS is hierarchical
  3. One WBS level’s output is an input to the next higher level.

5.      Analysis and Comparison of the Alternatives

By using Omniclass tables as reference, 3D WBS for the project is as follow:

  1. Zone Breakdown Structure (ZBS)
  2. Product Breakdown Structure (PBS)
  3. Activity Breakdown Structure (ABS)

Based on the above, it appears that OmniClass and 3D WBS are compatible.

6.      Selection of the Preferred Alternative

OmniClass tables give a more detailed WBS and can be applied to this gas metering system installation project.

7.      Performance Monitoring and Post Evaluation of Results

Monitoring and supervision should be conducted strictly during project to keep the project inline with the WBS.

Reference:

  1. Humpreys, G. C. (2011). Project Management Using Earned Value (2nd ed.). Humpreys & Associates, Inc.
  2. W16_GW_OmniClass and 3D WBS on Pipeline Installation. (2014, June 15). Retrieved from Kristal AACE 2014 : https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/w16_gw_omniclass-and-3d-wbs-on-pipeline-installation/
  3. OmniClass. (2017). Retrieved from OmniClass: http://www.omniclass.org/
  4. Syafri, F. (2013, October 8). Managing Small Project: Omniclass 3D WBS. Retrieved from Simatupang AACE 2014: http://simatupangaace2014.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/w6_afs_-managing-small-project-omniclass-3d-wbs-2/
  1. Moine J-Y. 2013.3D Work Breakdown Structure Method, PM Word Journal Vol. II, Issue IV–April 2013
 

W4_MFO_Contract Risk Mitigation For Topographic Survey

  1. Problem Definition.

We have been conducting bidding for topographic survey of gas pipeline project in North Sumatera. We plan to start this work in August 2017 until December 2017 (5 months duration). This work is very vulnerable to weather conditions because if the weather is rainy then the survey could not be conducted. So that, during negotiation meeting, the prospective winner bidder proposed 2 options for its offer. First option is IDR 4,500,000,000 without condition; or second option is IDR 4,350,000,000 + IDR 10,000,000/day stand by rate if topographic survey could not be conducted due to a bad weather.

  1. Identify the Feasible Alternative.

Facing to this case, we have to decide which proposal option is accepted, IDR 4,500,000,000 without condition (option 1);  or   IDR 4,350,000,000 + IDR 10,000,000/day stand by rate (option 2).

  1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative.

It is clearly that if we accept first option, then contract price will be IDR 4,500,000,000.

But, for the second option, we must to ensure the stand cost that might be happened. For calculating the standby cost, we need to know the number of bad weather days during period of work. This number may be estimated by using historical weather data. The following table contains weather data for past five years from Indonesian Agency for Meteorological, Climatological and Geophysics :

Table 1. Occurance of Bad Weather (In Days)

By using Monte Carlo simulation, it is forecasted the total bad weather days for each month in 2017, at P70 as follows:

Table 2. Occurance of Bad Weather in 2017

Therefore, stand by cost is estimated as 11 days * IDR 10,000,000 = IDR 110,000,000,

so that the price for second option is IDR 4,350,000,000 + IDR 110,000,000 = IDR 4,460,000,000.

  1. Selection of Criteria.

Of course, the main criterion is the lower cost. Another criteria is comes from our bidding procedure, namely the price should be lower than our owner’s estimation (OE) of IDR 5,000,000,000.

  1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.

Below table contains total cost for both options:

Table 3. Total cost for both options

From the table 3, Option 2 is cheaper IDR 40,000,000 than option 1

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

Based on comparison table above, we decided to proceed with option 2, IDR 4,350,000,000 + IDR 10,000,000/day stand by rate.

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

Monitoring and supervision should be conducted strictly during the execution of the work, especially in relation to the determination of whether a day is bad weather or not.

References:

  1. Sullivan, W.G., Wicks, E. M., Koelling, C. P. (2014). Engineering Economy, Chapter 12, page 526 to 562. Pearson. Sixteenth Edition.
  2. Bidding Document. (2017). Topographic survey. PT. ABCD. (Disguised).
  3. Monte Carlo Simulation. Retrieved from http://www.palisade.com/risk/monte_carlo_simulation.asp
  4. W4_YAW_Contract Risk Mitigation. Retrieved from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/w4_yaw_contract-risk-mitigation/
  5. Weather data. Retrieved from http://dataonline.bmkg.go.id/home
 

W2.1_MFO_Benchmarking Study of Estimation Process

  1. Problem Definition.

Accuracy in project estimating process becomes one of the issues in our project implementation, because sometimes ending over-budgeted or extremely under-budgeted. I will try to re-calculate the estimates for our completed projects with over budget using the twelve steps GAO’s cost estimating process. Then, later on we compare the results with estimates made based on the estimation process applicable in the company. We will compare the results using the multi attribute decision method and we will see which estimation process is better, the company’s estimation process or the twelve steps GAO’s estimating process.

  1. Identify the Feasible Alternative.

Accuracy verification has been done through well established technical methods and procedures. One of them is illustrated in the figure below and that method is adapted from GAO’s “Best Practices in Capital Budgeting”. This process is mainly four stages, initiation and research, assessment, analysis and presentation. I will try to benchmark against this standard process to extract recommendations to improve further on existing procedures.

Figure 1. GAO Cost Estimating Process

A resume after we compare our estimating process with The Twelve Steps of a High-Quality Cost Estimating Process from GAO’s “Best Practices in Capital Budgeting” as shown as below table.

Table 1. The comparison between our estimating process with The Twelve Steps of a High-Quality Cost Estimating Process

The results show that there are some gaps in our estimation process. There are some processes that we don’t do which can affect the accuracy in our estimation process

After find the gap, I will try to re-calculate the estimates for our completed projects with over budget using the twelve steps GAO’s cost estimating process and compare that using four non compensatory models. They are Dominance, Satisficing, Disjunctive, Lexicography

  1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative.

Summary information for each alternative :

Table 2 Estimating Process Data

  1. Selection of Criteria.
  1. Dominance. It is useful screening method for eliminating inferior alternatives from the analysis.
  2. Satisficing. It requires the establishment of minimum or maximum acceptable values for each attribute.
  3. Disjunctive. It relies on comparing the attributes of each alternative to the standard.
  4. Lexicography. By using it, a single attribute is judge to be more important than all other attributes.
  1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.

Non-compensatory model.

Four non-compensatory models, that are (1) dominance, (2) satisficing, (3) disjunctive resolution, and (4) lexicography, will be used.

For evaluation of dominance, pairwise comparison between two alternatives will be done for all attributes, as shown in table 3.

Table 3 Evaluation of Dominance

It is still unclear from above table, which one is dominant with others.

The satisficing model is done by applying acceptable limit, as shown in Table 4, where there are no alternatives that are eliminated.

Table 4 Satisficing Model Evaluation

Table 4 also is used to evaluate the disjunctive resolution, where concluded that all alternatives is acceptable because each has at least one attribute value that meets or exceeds the minimum expectation.

To conduct lexicography, the first should be done is to rank each attribute, as shown in table 4.

Table 5 Attributes Ranking

And then Table 5 shows evaluation using lexicography, where “GAO Cost Estimating Process (A)” has highest rank attribute.

Table 6 Lexicography Evaluation

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

Based on above alternatives:

  • Dominance. No alternative was selected, because all alternatives did not have dominant attributes than others.
  • Satisficing. It did not produce the best alternative.
  • Disjunctive resolution. All alternatives would be acceptable, because each has at least three attributes that meets the expectation.
  • Lexicography. The final choice would be alternative C because the estimated cost is the top-ranked attribute.

Based on the analysis, the preferred choice is alternative C.

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

Monitoring should be conducted during execution of the project to ensure that all requirements are met.

References:

  1. Sullivan, W.G., Wicks, E. M., Koelling, C. P. (2014). Engineering Economy, Chapter 14, page 559 to 617. Pearson. Sixteenth Edition.
  2. W17_YAW_Licensor Selection by Using Multi Attribute Decision. Retrieved from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/w17_yaw_licensor-selection-by-using-multi-attribute-decision/
  3. W4_Andi_Decision Making Multi Attributes. Retrieved from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/w4_andi_decision-making-multi-attributes/
  4. 10.3 – module 10-3 – managing change – the owner’s perepctive. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective
 

W3_MFO_ Gas Meter Selection by Using Multi Attribute Decision

  1. Problem Definition.

In our gas pipeline project, we need gas metering system to measure how much gas flow which is flowing in our gas pipeline. There are several types of gas meters commonly used are ultrasonic meters, orifice meters, and turbine meters; and each gas meter has different characteristics. So, I want to try to analyze what kind of gas meter which is suitable for our project by using multi attribute decision

  1. Identify the Feasible Alternative.

The following table contains data of three gas meter types that will be selected.

Table 1 Gas Meter Data

As shown in above table, there are five criteria of evaluation (in this case known as attribute).

Further, selection of gas meter types will use both methods of multi-attribute decision, namely non-compensatory model and compensatory model.

  1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative.

3.1.    Non-compensatory model.

Four non-compensatory models, that are (1) dominance, (2) satisficing, (3) disjunctive resolution, and (4) lexicography, will be used.

For evaluation of dominance, pairwise comparison between two alternatives will be done for all attributes, as shown in table 2.

Table 2 Evaluation of Dominance

It is still unclear from above table, which one is dominant with others.

The satisficing model is done by applying acceptable limit, as shown in Table 3, where there are no alternatives that are eliminated.

Table 3 Satisficing Model Evaluation

Table 3 also is used to evaluate the disjunctive resolution, where concluded that all alternatives is acceptable because each has at least one attribute value that meets or exceeds the minimum expectation.

To conduct lexicography, the first should be done is to rank each attribute, as shown in table 4.

Table 4 Attributes Ranking

And then Table 5 shows evaluation using lexicography, where “Ultrasonic Gas Meter (A)” has highest rank attribute.

Table 5 Lexicography Evaluation

 3.2.     Compensatory model.

In this evaluation, two compensatory models, that are the non-dimensional scaling and the additive weighting technique will be used.

Ranking attribute by using non-dimensional scaling as shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Non-dimensional scaling

After set relative rank for each attribute, further is to conduct additive weighting for all alternatives as shown in table 7.

Table 7 Additive weighting evaluation

Note: Column Relative Rank is taken from Table 4.

As shown in Table 7, alternative “Ultrasonic Gas Meter (A)” has highest rank.

  1. Selection of Criteria.

A selection criterion for gas meter selection is the highest rank.

  1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.

Table 8 shows ranking of gas meter that resulted from both non-compensatory model and compensatory model.

Table 8 Ranking of gas meter

As shown in Table 8, it is interesting to see that both methods result the same rank order, where “Ultrasonic (A)” has rank number I (highest) followed by Orifice (B), and Turbine (C).

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

Off course, Ultrasonic gas meter will be decided as gas meter type which is used for the project.

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

Monitoring should be conducted during execution of the project to ensure that all requirements are met.

References:

  1. Sullivan, W.G., Wicks, E. M., Koelling, C. P. (2014). Engineering Economy, Chapter 14, page 559 to 617. Pearson. Sixteenth Edition.
  2. W17_YAW_Licensor Selection by Using Multi Attribute Decision. Retrieved from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/w17_yaw_licensor-selection-by-using-multi-attribute-decision/
  3. W4_Andi_Decision Making Multi Attributes. Retrieved from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/w4_andi_decision-making-multi-attributes/
  4. 10.3 – module 10-3 – managing change – the owner’s perepctive. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective

 

 

 

 

 

W2_MFO_Benchmarking Study of Estimating Process

  1. Problem Definition

Accuracy in project estimating process becomes one of the issues in our project implementation, because sometimes ending over-budgeted or extremely under-budgeted.

  1. Identify the Feasible Alternative

Accuracy verification has been done through well established technical methods and procedures. One of them is illustrated in the figure below and that method is adapted from GAO’s “Best Practices in Capital Budgeting”. This process is mainly four stages, initiation and research, assessment, analysis and presentation. I will try to benchmarked against this standard process to extract recommendations to improve further on existing procedures.

Figure 1. GAO Cost Estimating Process

  1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

Parameters which are trying to be analysis base on The Twelve Steps of a High-Quality Cost Estimating Process from GAO’s “Best Practices in Capital Budgeting”. I will compare our estimating process with the twelve steps and I will try to find the gap between GAO and estimating process. Each of the 12 steps is important for ensuring that high-quality cost estimates are developed and delivered in time to support important decisions

 

Table 1: The Twelve Steps of a High-Quality Cost Estimating Process

  1. Selection Criteria

A resume after we compare our estimating process with The Twelve Steps of a High-Quality Cost Estimating Process from GAO’s “Best Practices in Capital Budgeting” as shown as below table.

Table 2. The comparison between our estimating process with The Twelve Steps of a High-Quality Cost Estimating Process

The results show that there are some gaps in our estimation process. There are some processes that we don’t do which can affect the accuracy in our estimation process.

  1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

Result in Table 2 shows that the there are some gaps in our estimation process. There are some processes that still not did yet which can affect the accuracy in our estimation process. The summary of the gap obtained can be seen in the table 3. Only Step 1 which already appropriate with The Twelve Steps of a High-Quality Cost Estimating Process, the other step has not been done in part or in whole and needs to be improved to make our estimation process better.

Table 3. Summary of the gap obtained

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Base on table 3 there are many steps that must be improved in our estimation process, but one of the most important to improve and very influential to the accuracy of the estimation process is in the assessment step consisting of step 3 to 7, especially in terms of making WBS. So far, we have never made WBS before making an estimate, causing our estimates to be inaccurate. So, the first step to improved our estimating process can be start with making WBS.

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

Monitoring should be conducted during estimating process to ensure that all requirements are met. We can start with develop Cost estimating checklist.

 

Reference:

  1. GAO (March 2009). GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, A Reliable Process for Developing Credible Cost Estimates pages 8-11. Retrieved on 12th July 2014 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d093sp.pdf
  2. Musallam Al-Awaid (Sept, 2014), Oman Oil and Gas Cost Estimating vs the GAO’s Best Practices in Capital Budgeting – a Benchmarking Study, Retrieved on 4th Aug 2017 from http://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/pmwj26-sep2014-Al-Awaid-Oman-oil-and-gas-cost-estimating-FeaturedPaper2.pdf
 

W1_MFO_Tuckman Analysis Assignment

  1. Problem Definition

Emerald AACE 2017 Team has been formed during five days F2F (Face to Face) session in classroom 24 to 28 July 2017. All team’s member with different background may have different expectation from this project. First assignment is to know stage of team position according to Tuckman Model and to define leadership style.

  1. Identify the Feasible Alternative

Dr Bruce Tuckman published his Forming Storming Norming Performing model in 1965.

There are four stages of team development introduced by Professor Bruce Tuckman present in the following figure:

Figure 1. Tuckman’s Method

Tuckman’s model explains that as the team develops maturity and ability, relationships establish, and the leader changes leadership style. Beginning with a directing style, moving through coaching, then participating, finishing delegating and almost detached. At this point the team may produce a successor leader and the previous leader can move on to develop a new team.

  1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

Emerald AACE 2017 team members shall choose and fill 32 questions survey which are developed by Donald Clark. The group can be either in Forming phase, Storming Phase, Norming Phase or Performing Phase. Delphi technique with P75 used to analysis the data.

  1. Selection Criteria

A resume after 32 questions has been answered with additional Delphi Technique Tool using P75 probability confident level as shown as below table.

Table 1. Donald Clark Team Survey Result

Table 2. P75 Result with Delphi Technique

It shows result, currently Emerald AACE 2017 project stage is PERFORMING.

  1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

Result in Table 2 shows that the team has a highest score for Performing Phase. It means that team is committed to performing well, focuses on being strategic, and team runs well with little oversight

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

FORMING and NORMING Stage can be appropriate alternatives considered negligible score while comparing to PERFORMING Stage.

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

Even though the group already in the Performing Phase, Program and Project Managers should monitor how the team performs by regular reporting, tracking against project plans. Another survey could be periodically carried out to check on how the team member perceptions change over time.

Reference:

  1. Five Stage Model of Group Development. Retrieved from (https://www.tutorialspoint.com/individual_and_group_behavior/five_stage_model_group_development.htm)
  2. Tuckman Forming Storming Norming Performing model. Retrieved from (http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm)
  3. Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing – Understanding the Stages of Team Formation. Retrieved from (http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm)
  4. W1_Andi_Tuckman Assessment. Retrieved from (https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/w1_andi_tuckman-assessment-3/)
  5. W1.1_DHU_Tuckman Assesment. Retrieved from (https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/w1_dhu_tuckman-assesment-2/)