W7_TH_ Standardized WBS Structures for Gas Station Project-Part 4

1. Problem Definition

Gas Station (GS) project is a construction project of gas pipeline treatment facility to compressed natural gas (CNG). CNG is used as motor vehicle fuel. Types of motor vehicles that currently dominate the use of CNG are public transportation such as bus, bajaj and taxi.

Fig 1. GS Project Lay Out

A GS area consists of several areas: commercial area, administrative area, main equipment area and utility equipment area. In this project each area is supported by some equipment or facilities

Commercial area is the area used for costumer consists of waiting room area, food court area, ATM area and minimarket area. The administrative area consists of gas station office space, workplace, worship room and toilet. The main equipment area generally contains equipment such as scrubbers, dryers, compressors, CNG storage and dispensers. While the utility equipment area consists of POS (point of sales), FACP (fire alarm control panel), CCTV (closed circuit television), ESDV, air instrument and panel room.

In the project, Engineering team is divided into several disciplines such as mechanical engineer, process engineer, civil engineer, instrumentation engineer, electrical engineer and pipeline-pipeline engineer.
Each engineer has the task in accordance with his expertise to oversee the project from the initial phase, design, construction, commissioning and subsequently submitted to the operations team

After compare 15 Omniclass Tables that applicable and relevant for GS Project WBS, in this week Author will build Standardized GS WBS from top three OmniClass Tables which are:

  1. Table 13-Spaces by Function
  2. Table 23-Products
  3. Table 31-Phases
2. Develop the Feasible Alternative
  • Table 13-Spaces by Function

Spaces by Function are basic units of the built environment delineated by physical or abstract boundaries and characterized by their function or primary use. Spaces have a purpose or use.  This is their function and the concern of this table.  Spaces can be occupied by people, things, and substances and serve as mediums for activities and movement.

  • Table 23-Products

Products are components or assemblies of components intended for permanent incorporation into construction entities. A product may be a single manufactured item, a manufactured assembly consisting of many parts, or a manufactured operational stand-alone system.

  • Table 31-Phases

A phase is a period of time in the duration of a construction project identified by the overall character of the construction processes which occur within it. This table provides the time and activity dimension for the process of creating and sustaining the built environment.  A “project” can be defined as a planned undertaking consisting of a process or set of procedures to accomplish a task.  Phases are portions of time and activity efforts within any project that provide necessary groupings of activities, and resultant milestones and expectations.

 3. Develop of the Outcome for Alternative

Moine (2013) has developed a 3D WBS model. All of this three dimension projects can be integrated in comprehensive 3D models which visualized as Figure 2 below[2]:

Figure 2. Project Cubes Concept of 3D WBS Model[2]

Author will combine Table 13-Spaces by Function as Zone Breakdown Structure (ZBS), Table 23-Products as Product Breakdown Structure (PBS) and Table 31-Phases as Activity Breakdown Structure (ABS) to become Standardized GS 3D WBS.

4. Selection Criteria

The criteria for choose OmniClass Number and combine to 3D WBS are:

  1. The WBS should represent zone, activity or phase for GS Project
  2. Deliverables should be decomposed to the level of detail needed to estimate the effort required to obtain them
  3. Ensure That each WBS element has a single point of accountability
  4. Support historical cost collection for future cost estimating purposes
5. Analysis & Comparison of Alternative
  • Table 13-Spaces by Function – Zone Breakdown Structure (ZBS).

Detail ZBS for GS projects can be extracted by OmniClass Table 13 (Space by Function) which noted spaces for decompose ZBS components, which detail shown:

Chart 1. GS OmniClass ZBS

Figure 3. GS Space by Function

  • Table 23-Products – Product Breakdown Structure (PBS).

Detail PBS for GS project can be extracted by OmniClass Table 23 (Product) which noted GS facilities for decomposes PBS components, which detail shown:

Chart 2. GS OmniClass PBS

Figure 4. GS Facilities

  • Table 31 – Activity Breakdown Structure (ABS).

Detail ABS for GS project can be extracted by OmniClass Table 31 (Phases) which noted project phase for decompose ABS components, which detail shown:

Chart 3. GS OmniClass ABS

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternatives

Three Tables are combine together to form dimensional cube where OmniClass PBS as x-axis, OmniClass ABS as y-axis and OmniClass ZBS as z-axis, which shown at 3D WBS below.

Figure 5. GS OmniClass 3D WBS

7. Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation Result

Standardized GS WBS can build from combining top three OmniClass Tables. It is necessary to keep update the WBS periodically during project phase. Project management team also needs to evaluate the impact during phases of the project so the project can smoothly deliver with on time, on budget and on scope.

References:

  1. Planning Planet (2017). Creating Work Breakdown Structure. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/creating-work-breakdown-structure
  2. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W14_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/w14_sas_developing-standardize-omniclass-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  3. OmniClass (2017), OmniClass Table 21 – Elements (includes design elements). Retrieved from www.omniclass.org/tables/OmniClass_21_2012-05-16.zip
  4. Norsok Standard Z-014 (2017), Norsok Standard Z-014. Retrieved from http://www.standard.no/pagefiles/951/z-014.pdf
  5. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W12_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/w12_sas_developing-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  6. El Rashid, M. (2016). The Influence of Non-Standard Work Breakdown Structure on Change Orders and Cost Estimation for Sudan Oil and Gas Projects, PM Word Journal Vol. V. Retrieved from http://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/pmwj53-Dec2016-ElRashid-non-standard-work-breakdown-structure-sudan-featured-paper.pdf
  7. Gannasonggo, Gustaf. (2012). W3_GGS_OmniClass WBS|Casablanca AACE 2012. Retrieved from https://aacecasablanca.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/w3_ggs_omniclass-wbs-table-selection-using-additive-weighting-technique/
  8. Fahmi, Ahmad. (2014). W6_AFS-Managing Small Project |Simatupang AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://simatupangaace2014.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/w6_afs_-managing-small-project-omniclass-3d-wbs-2/comment-page-1/
 

W6.1_TH_ Standardized WBS Structures for Gas Station Project-Part 3

1. Problem Definition

After compare two best practice of standardized WBS on Blog W2 and W5, this week the Blog will determine and analyze which of the 15 elements Omniclass tables would be applicable to use in creating a WBS structure for a Gas Station Project.

2. Develop the Feasible Alternative

OmniClass 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[2].

Fig 1. Inter-related OmniClass[2]

Author will be chosen what kind of tables on OmniClass that applicable for GS Project WBS.

3. Develop of the Outcome for Alternative

To choose top four most applicable tables from the 15 tables, the most appropriate technique will be the multi attributes approach. Compensatory models, the additive weighting technique has been chosen to help performing the comparison and selection. In all compensatory models, which involve a single dimension, the values of all attributes must be converted to a common measureable scale. By using determined criteria related to the Gas Station Project, the additive weighting technique will rank the 15 tables, shows high to low applicability and relevance to the project.

 4. Selection Criteria

There are six criteria related to gas station project that have been determined for the OmniClass tables selection:

  1. WBS zone that related to Gas Station Project (1-3, 3 being highest relationship)
  2. WBS deliverables related to Gas Station Project (1-3, 3 being highest relationship)
  3. WBS activity related to Gas Station Project (1-3, 3 being highest relationship)
  4. WBS organization that related to Gas Station Project (1-3, 3 being highest relationship)
  5. WBS level detail completeness (1-4, 4 being preferable)
  6. Tables applicability/uses for oil & gas project (low to high)
5. Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

The comparison result of OmniClass Tables is shown in the following table:

Table 1. OmniClass Tables Comparison Based on Six Selection Criteria

Attributes in table 1 were ranked in order of importance by applying paired comparison between each attribute combination. Results are shown as follows:

Table 2. Ordinal Ranking of OmniClass Tables attributes

Based on Table 2, relative rank = ordinal rank + 1. A rank of 5 is best, the relative ranking will become as follows:

Table 3 OmniClass Tables Selection – Attribute Weight

The attributes values on Table 1 have to be converted in to non-dimensional form. The procedure for converting the original data on table 1 for a particular attribute to its dimensionless rating is:

The non-dimensional (dimensionless) values of the attributes are shown on Table 4:

Table 4 OmniClass Tables Selection – Dimensionless Value

Finally, for each OmniClass table, the normalized weight of the attribute (Table 3) is multiplied the non-dimensional attribute value (Table 4) to obtain a weighted score for the attribute. These weighted score are then summed to arrive at an overall score for each OmniClass table. The result is shown on Table 5.

Table 5 OmniClass Tables Selection – Weighted Score

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternatives

Based on calculation and Table 5 comparison, the top four most applicable and relevant WBS from OmniClass for the GS Project is:

  1. Table 13-Spaces by Function (score 0.397)
  2. Table 23-Products (score 0.357)
  3. Table 31-Phases (score 0.270)
  4. Table 33-Disciplines (score 0.254)
7. Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation Result

A standardized WBS structure is one success key for project team to the deliver project with OTOBOS. Next week, author will try to build up Gas Station WBS from top four OmniClass Tables, to prove whether the conclusion above is correct, and start evaluating the impact during phases of the project.

References:

  1. Planning Planet (2017). Creating Work Breakdown Structure. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/creating-work-breakdown-structure
  2. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W14_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/w14_sas_developing-standardize-omniclass-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  3. OmniClass (2017), OmniClass Table 21 – Elements (includes design elements). Retrieved from www.omniclass.org/tables/OmniClass_21_2012-05-16.zip
  4. Norsok Standard Z-014 (2017), Norsok Standard Z-014. Retrieved from http://www.standard.no/pagefiles/951/z-014.pdf
  5. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W12_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/w12_sas_developing-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  6. El Rashid, M. (2016). The Influence of Non-Standard Work Breakdown Structure on Change Orders and Cost Estimation for Sudan Oil and Gas Projects, PM Word Journal Vol. V. Retrieved from http://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/pmwj53-Dec2016-ElRashid-non-standard-work-breakdown-structure-sudan-featured-paper.pdf
  7. Gannasonggo, Gustaf. (2012). W3_GGS_OmniClass WBS|Casablanca AACE 2012. Retrieved from https://aacecasablanca.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/w3_ggs_omniclass-wbs-table-selection-using-additive-weighting-technique/
 

W6_TH_ Standardized WBS Structures for Gas Station Project-Part 3

1. Problem Definition

After compare two best practice of standardized WBS on Blog W2 and W5, this week the Blog will determine and analyze which of the 15 elements Omniclass tables specially on Zone Breakdown Structure would be appropriate to use in creating a 3D WBS structure for a Gas Station Project.

2. Develop the Feasible Alternative

Moine (2013) has developed a 3D WBS model[5].

  • Product Breakdown Structure (PBS) is constructed by Systems, sub systems, products and sub products. Products are an extension of Systems. On Omni Class it is contain Table: 11, 12, 21, 23 and 36.
  • Activity Breakdown Structure (ABS) is constructed by phases, macro-activities, activities and sub activities. On Omni Class it is contain Table: 22, 31 and 32.
  • Zone Breakdown Structure (ZBS) are physico-functionnals, they are divided by Areas, Sections, for instance. ZBS can be a topographic view of the construction site of a project, it can be a notion of geography. ZBS can be also viewed as functional zones, like for design phase and commissioning phase for instance. On Omni Class it is contain Table: 13 and 14.

All of this three dimension projects can be integrated in comprehensive 3D models which visualized as figure 1 below[2]:

Fig 1. Project Cubes Concept of 3D WBS Model[2]

3. Develop of the Outcome for Alternative

In this week, author will be chosen what kind of GBS/ZBS element on Omniclass that applicable for GS Project. Author will use the Lexicography Non-Compensatory Models tool.

4. Selection Criteria

Two standardized WBS will be evaluated considering the following attributes:

  • WBS level detail completeness
  • Tables applicability/uses for oil & gas project
  • WBS that reflect function boundaries of gas station
  • WBS level description
5. Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

There are two elements on OmniClass that present ZBS element: Tables 13 and 14.

Fig 1. OmniClass Table 13

Table 13 content Spaces by Function that are basic units of the built environment delineated by physical or abstract boundaries and characterized by function.

Fig 2. OmniClass Table 14

Table 14 content Spaces by Form that are basic units of the built environment delineated by physical or abstract boundaries and characterized by physical form.

The ZBS Elements Table comparison of the attributes is expressed in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Comparison of ZBS Elements

Attributes in table 1 were ranked in order of importance by applying paired comparison between each attribute combination. Results are shown as follows:

Table 2. Ordinal Ranking of ZBS Elements

Following Table 2, the ranking is ordered as follows:

Table 3. Application of Lexicography

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternatives

The Table 13 was found the optimum selection, since it has the highest score. The Table 13 not only can reflect function boundaries of GS Project but also has the highest level details that include level description. Therefore, it could be adapted as a standardized ZBS element to enhance the project performance and cost control GS projects.

7. Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation Result

A standardized WBS structure is one success key for project team to the deliver project with OTOBOS. Next week, author will build up GS WBS from Table 13, to prove whether the conclusion above is correct and start evaluating the impact during phases of the project.

 

References:

  1. Planning Planet (2017). Creating Work Breakdown Structure. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/creating-work-breakdown-structure
  2. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W14_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/w14_sas_developing-standardize-omniclass-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  3. OmniClass (2017), OmniClass Table 21 – Elements (includes design elements). Retrieved from www.omniclass.org/tables/OmniClass_21_2012-05-16.zip
  4. Norsok Standard Z-014 (2017), Norsok Standard Z-014. Retrieved from http://www.standard.no/pagefiles/951/z-014.pdf
  5. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W12_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/w12_sas_developing-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  6. El Rashid, M. (2016). The Influence of Non-Standard Work Breakdown Structure on Change Orders and Cost Estimation for Sudan Oil and Gas Projects, PM Word Journal Vol. V. Retrieved from http://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/pmwj53-Dec2016-ElRashid-non-standard-work-breakdown-structure-sudan-featured-paper.pdf
  7. Gannasonggo, Gustaf. (2012). W3_GGS_OmniClass WBS|Casablanca AACE 2012. Retrieved from https://aacecasablanca.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/w3_ggs_omniclass-wbs-table-selection-using-additive-weighting-technique/
 

W5_TH_ Standardized WBS Structures for Gas Station Project-Part 2

  1. Problem Definition

One of the leading causes of claims and disputes on a project comes because of poor or incomplete scope definition; leading to scope changes and variations[1]. Standardized WBS structures can help the project team to deliver project objective with OTOBOS (On Time, On Budget and On Schedule). What kind of standardized WBS can be adapted for Gas Station (GS) Project?

  1. Develop the Feasible Alternative

There are two best practice of standardized WBS[1]:

  • NORSOK Standard Z-014: Standard Cost Coding System (SCSS) rev 1, Oct 2002. NORSOK was developed on 1989 because the Norwegian government was unhappy with all their production sharing contractors reporting costs using different coding structures.
  • OmniClass: The concept for OmniClass is derived from internationally-accepted standards that have been developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 12006-2) and the International Construction Information Society (ICIS) subcommittees and workgroups from the early-1990s to the present.

The author will compare both of them and choose one that most suitable for GS Project.

  1. Develop of the Outcome for Alternative

Two standardized WBS will be compare using the Lexicography Non-Compensatory Models.

  1. Selection Criteria

Two standardized WBS will be evaluated considering the following attributes:

  • Suitable for Onshore/Offshore
  • Managing Project Interface
  • No of Dimensions
  • Level of Work Package Details
  • Monitoring the Project
  • Zone Breakdown Structure
  1. Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

OmniClass 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[2].

Fig 1. Inter-related OmniClass[2]

Fig 2. OmniClass Table 21 (Elements) [3]

NORSOK standard describes a system for coding of cost and weight estimates and as-built/experience data. It comprises 3 sets of complementary sub-coding systems named:

  • PBS (Physical Breakdown Structure)
  • SAB (Standard Activity Breakdown)
  • COR (Code Of Resources)

Fig 3. Norsok SAB (Standard Activity Breakdown) Elements[4]

The WBS comparison of the attributes is expressed in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Comparison of WBS attributes

Attributes in table 1 were ranked in order of importance by applying paired comparison between each attribute combination. Results are shown as follows:

Table 2. Ordinal Ranking of WBS attributes

 

Table 3. Application of Lexicography

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternatives

Considering the above ranking results, the OmniClass WBS was found the optimum selection, since it has the highest score. The OmniClass is suited for the onshore projects and has the highest numbers of dimensions. Therefore, it could be adapted as a standardized WBS to enhance the project performance and cost control GS projects. The OmniClass as a multidimensional WBS is better defined and zoning the scope with in-depth level of details and ease/define the possible interface and facilitate monitoring the project comparing to the others. These advantages will contribute significantly in reducing the number of change orders as it will reduce the possible scope omissions or errors.

7. Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation Result

The next step will be to build up WBS for the Gas Station Project using top three elements of OmniClass, to prove whether the conclusion above is correct, and start evaluating the impact during phases of the project.

 

References:

  1. Planning Planet (2017). Creating Work Breakdown Structure. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/creating-work-breakdown-structure
  2. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W14_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/w14_sas_developing-standardize-omniclass-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  3. OmniClass (2017), OmniClass Table 21 – Elements (includes design elements). Retrieved from www.omniclass.org/tables/OmniClass_21_2012-05-16.zip
  4. Norsok Standard Z-014 (2017), Norsok Standard Z-014. Retrieved from http://www.standard.no/pagefiles/951/z-014.pdf
  5. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W12_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/w12_sas_developing-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  6. El Rashid, M. (2016). The Influence of Non-Standard Work Breakdown Structure on Change Orders and Cost Estimation for Sudan Oil and Gas Projects, PM Word Journal Vol. V. Retrieved from http://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/pmwj53-Dec2016-ElRashid-non-standard-work-breakdown-structure-sudan-featured-paper.pdf
 

W4_TH_Tuckman Survey on Non Process Engineer Team

Problem Definition

Non Process Engineer Team has been actively working together for the past 1.5 years. This team consists of several disciplines such as mechanical engineer, civil engineer, pipeline engineer, instrument engineer and electrical engineer. The challenge of this team is the increasing and complexity of gas infrastructure projects that will be faced. We now want to determine the leadership skills and styles which the group may benefit from as it enters this next phase of the project.

Develop the Feasible Alternative

In 1965, Tuckman published his Forming Storming Norming Performing model and completed with the fifth stage, Adjourning in 1970s. This model explains that as the team develops maturity and ability, relationships establish, and the leader changes leadership style from Directing (Telling), Coaching, Participative, and Delegating up to Directing (Concluding) [1].

Fig. 1 Tuckman’s Team Development Model[1]

Illustration graph of Tuckman Model Group Development Stages is shown in the next figure[2]:

Fig 2. Tuckman Group Development Stages Model[2]

Develop of the Outcome for Alternative

To determine current Non Process Engineer Team stage, each individual in team fill the excel format of Tuckman Survey Scoring Template[3][4].

Table.1 – Individual responses from the Tuckman Survey Scoring Template.

Selection Criteria

Based on the above individual’s response, PERT analysis was performed to identify team behavior at P90 because these team already join over long time (1.5 years)

Table 2. P90 Delphi Technique Result

Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

Based on Table 2, we can conclude team is in Performing stage (indicated by the rank). During this stage, team members often experience:

  • Constructive self-change;
  • Deep sense of belonging;
  • Understanding of each others strengths and weaknesses;
  • Self-organization of work;

Hints for team leaders:

  • Delegate all work that sensibly can;
  • Focus on developing team members;

Style of leadership this stage is “DELEGATING” mode where some leadership is shared by the team.

Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Non Process Engineer team can achieve more than each team member individually. Being part of a high-performance team can be extremely rewarding, but it requires time and commitment to get to that stage. The team leader job is to help this team reach and sustain high-performance, but there is no quick and easy way to go about it and leader has to adapt behavior and leadership style to the different challenges presented at each stage. Remember that ultimately team leader can’t decree a performance culture upon your team – the team as a whole will have to go through the stages itself. The team leader role is to be aware of the challenges the team will face and support the team throughout this journey.

Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation of Result

Team assessment should conduct periodically in six months ahead to capture team phase changing and select appropriate style of leadership, this evaluation can help the team to improve coordination and productivity.

References:

  1. Tuckman, B. (1965). Tuckman’s Team Developmental Model. Retrieved from http://www.focusadventure.com/team-building/gallery/tuckmans-team-developmental-model/
  2. Aurora (2013). Bruce Tuckman’s Team Development Model. Retrieved from http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/download.cfm/docid/3C6230CF-61E8-4C5E-9A0C1C81DCDEDCA2
  3. Barkema and Moran. (2013). Scoring The Tuckman Team Maturity Questionnaire Electronically. Retrieved from http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Documents/pdf
  4. Barkema and Moran. (2013). Tuckman Survey Scoring Template. Retrieved from http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Documents/pdf
  5. Hendarto, Tommy (2017). W1_TH_Tuckman Analysis |EMERALD AACE 2017. Retrieved from http://emeraldaace2017.com/2017/08/01/w1_th_tuckman-analysis-assessment/
  6. Michell, Tony (2017). W2_ABM_Folow Up Tuckman|EMERALD AACE 2017. Retrieved from http://emeraldaace2017.com/2017/08/08/w2_abm_follow-up-tuckman-survey-on-spj-offshore-construction-team/
  7. Almeida, José. (2012). Tuckmans Model of Team Development and Dynamics. Retrieved from https://thousandinsights.wordpress.com/articles/on-leadership/tuckmans-model-of-team-development-and-dynamics/
 

W3_TH_ Gas Station Prime Mover Selection by Using Multi Attribute Decision

  1. Problem Definition.

There are three types of prime mover commonly used on gas station project: gas engine, electric motor and diesel engine. This prime mover used to driven CNG compressor. By using multi attribute decision, we can choose the best option for gas station project.

  1. Identify the Feasible Alternative.

Summary data of three prime mover types:

Table 1 Prime Mover Data

There are six criteria of evaluation known as attribute. Selection of prime mover types will use both methods of multi-attribute decision: non-compensatory model and compensatory model.

  1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative.

3.1.    Non-compensatory model.

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

To check for dominance in Table 1, pairwise comparison of each prime mover`s set of attributes must be inspected, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Evaluation of Dominance

Based on Table 2, we know that no prime mover is dominant than others.

To illustrate the satisficing model, acceptable limits must be established for each attributes.

Table 3 Evaluation of Satisficing Model

No alternatives that are eliminated on this models, shown by Table 3.

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 step is to rank each attribute, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Attributes Ranking

Table 5 shows evaluation using lexicography, where “Electric Motor (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 (NDS)

As shown in Table 6, alternative “Electric Motor (B)” has highest rank

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 (AWE)

Note: Column Relative Rank is taken from Table 5.

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

  1. Selection of Criteria.

A selection criterion for prime mover selection is the highest rank.

  1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.

Table 8 shows ranking of prime mover that resulted from both non-compensatory model and compensatory model.

Table 8 Ranking of Prime Mover

As shown in Table 8, it is interesting to see that both methods result the different rank order, where on Non-compensatory model and Compensatory model NDS: “Electric Motor (B)” has rank number I (highest) followed by Gas Engine (A), and Diesel Engine (C). Different with Compensatory model AWE result: “Gas Engine (A)” has rank number I (highest) followed by Diesel Engine (C) and Electric Motor (B).

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

Electric Motor will be decided as prime mover type for the gas station project. But if the delivery time and OPEX (as shown by rank Table 7) be the main concern, the best choice is Gas Engine.

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

To ensure that all requirements are met, monitoring should be conducted during execution of the project.

References:

  1. Sullivan, W.G., Wicks, E. M., Koelling, C. P. (2014). Engineering Economy, Chapter 14, page 559 to 617. Pearson. Sixteenth Edition.
  2. Planning Planet (2017). Multi Attribute Decision Making. Retrieved from https://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective
  3. W3_MFO_Gas Meter Selection by Using Multi Attribute Decision. Retrieved from https://emeraldaace2017.com/2017/08/15/w3_mfo_-gas-meter-selection-by-using-multi-attribute-decision/
  4. 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/
  5. W4_Andi_Decision Making Multi Attributes. Retrieved from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/w4_andi_decision-making-multi-attributes/
 

W2.1_TH_Standardized WBS Structures for Gas Station Project

Problem Definition

One of the leading causes of claims and disputes on a project comes because of poor or incomplete scope definition; leading to scope changes and variations[1]. Standardized WBS structures can help the project team to deliver project objective with OTOBOS (On Time, On Budget and On Schedule). What kind of standardized WBS can be adapted for Gas Station (GS) Project?

Develop the Feasible Alternative

There are two best practice of standardized WBS[1]:

  1. NORSOK Standard Z-014: Standard Cost Coding System (SCSS) rev 1, Oct 2002. NORSOK was developed on 1989 because the Norwegian government was unhappy with all their production sharing contractors reporting costs using different coding structures.
  2. OmniClass: OmniClass is a means of organizing and retrieving information specifically designed for the construction industry. The concept for OmniClass is derived from internationally-accepted standards that have been developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 12006-2) and the International Construction Information Society (ICIS) subcommittees and workgroups from the early-1990s to the present.

The author will compare both of them and choose one that most suitable for GS Project.

Develop of the Outcome for Alternative

The WBS is supposed to top down approach, become input for the CPM Schedule and also using Activity Based Costing.

Selection Criteria

Characteristics of the WBS:

  1. WBS is hierarchical
  2. WBS defines specific output
  3. WBS can give many point of view for management

Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

OmniClass 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[2].

Fig 1. Inter-related OmniClass[2]

Fig 2. OmniClass Table 21 (Elements) [3]

NORSOK standard describes a system for coding of cost and weight estimates and as-built/experience data. It comprises 3 sets of complementary sub-coding systems named:

  1. PBS (Physical Breakdown Structure)
  2. SAB (Standard Activity Breakdown)
  3. COR (Code Of Resources)

Fig 3. Norsok SAB (Standard Activity Breakdown) Elements[4]

We can compare both OmniClass and NORSOK as follow:

Fig 4. Comparison OmniClass vs NORSOK

Selection of the Preferred Alternatives

GS is construction project based, this project built facility to transfer gas from pipeline to transportation vehicle such as bus, truck, taxi, bajaj on Compression Natural Gas (CNG) form.

Since GS project is construction based that have zone breakdown structure, the Omniclass WBS will give more variations of WBS elements and can be implemented for standardize WBS into GS Project.

Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation Result

A standardized WBS structure is one success key for project team to the deliver project with OTOBOS. The next step will be to build up WBS for the Gas Station Project using top three elements of OmniClass, to prove whether the conclusion above is correct, and start evaluating the impact during phases of the project.

 

References:

  1. Planning Planet (2017). Creating Work Breakdown Structure. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/creating-work-breakdown-structure
  2. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W14_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/w14_sas_developing-standardize-omniclass-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  3. OmniClass (2017), OmniClass Table 21 – Elements (includes design elements). Retrieved from www.omniclass.org/tables/OmniClass_21_2012-05-16.zip
  4. Norsok Standard Z-014 (2017), Norsok Standard Z-014. Retrieved from http://www.standard.no/pagefiles/951/z-014.pdf
  5. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W12_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/w12_sas_developing-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
 

W2_TH_Developing Standardize OmniClass 3D WBS for Gas Station (GS) Project

Problem Definition

The WBS is a basic tool in project management. The WBS serves as framework for defining all project work elements and their interrelationships, collecting organizing information, developing relevant cost and revenue data, and integrating project management activities [1].

GS Project must have standardized WBS component because it can help the project team to deliver project objective with OTOBOS.

 

Develop the Feasible Alternative

The feasible alternatives to develop standardize WBS as follow[2]:

  1. NORZOK Standard Z-014 3D-WBS: Standard Cost Coding System (SCSS) edition 2, May 2012. This NORSOK standard describes a system for coding of cost and weight estimates and as-built/experience data.
  2. OmniClass 3D-WBS: 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.

The author will develop the WBS using OmniClass.

 

Develop of the Outcome for Alternative

Moine (2013) has developed a 3D WBS model. All of this three dimension projects can be integrated which visualized as figure 1 below[3]:

Fig 1. Project Cubes Concept of 3D WBS Model[3]

Selection Criteria

The 15 inter-related OmniClass tables are[2]:

Fig 2. Inter-related OmniClass

Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

  1. GS Project– Zone Breakdown Structure (ZBS).

The term ZBS refer to the tree structure of area, sites or the geographical parts of the project generally. Detail ZBS for GS projects can be extracted by OmniClass Table 13 (Space by Function) which noted spaces for decompose ZBS components, which detail shown:

Chart 1 GS OmniClass ZBS.

Figure 2 GS Space by Function

  1. GS Project– Product Breakdown Structure (PBS).

The PBS breaks the project into physical elements, products, systems or sub systems. Detail PBS for GS project can be extracted by OmniClass Table 23 (Product) which noted GS facilities for decomposes PBS components, which detail shown:

Chart 2 GS OmniClass PBS.

Figure 3 GS Facilities.

  1. GS Project– Activity Breakdown Structure (ABS).

ABS is the hierarchy of activities, phases, and sub-activities. Detail ABS for GS project can be extracted by OmniClass Table 31 (Phases) which noted project phase for decompose ABS components, which detail shown:

Chart 3 GS OmniClass ABS.

  1. GS Project– 3D WBS.

The 3 types of GS project dimension are mixed together to form dimensional cube where OmniClass PBS as x-axis, OmniClass ABS as y-axis and OmniClass ZBS as z-axis, which shown at 3D WBS below.

Figure 4 GS OmniClass 3D WBS.

Selection of the Preferred Alternatives

Based on analysis above, shown that the Omniclass tables give more detailed WBS and can be fully implemented for standardize 3D WBS into GS Project.

Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation Result

OmniClass is specifically designed for the construction industry, so use the tables to be suitable for O&G projects is challenging task. It is necessary to keep update the WBS periodically.

 

References:

  1. Sullivan, W.G., Wicks, E.M., Koelling, C.P., (2014). Engineering Economy 16th edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
  2. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W14_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/w14_sas_developing-standardize-omniclass-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/
  3. Ardi, Satria. (2014). W12_SAS_Developing|Soroako AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://soroakoaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/w12_sas_developing-3d-wbs-for-electric-furnace-rebuild-project/

 

 

W1_TH_Tuckman Analysis Assessment

  1. Problem Definition

Emerald AACE 2017 was established during 5 days face to face class with two main targets: (1) pass AACE/PMP/GPC Certification exam at first attempt and (2) gain Return of Training Investment (RoTI). After face to face class, team will do distance learning mode (DLM) for 180 days. The first assignment of DLM is to assess the team development stage using Tuckman Model. From there we can analyze what leadership style can be effectively implemented.

  1. Develop the Feasible Alternative

In 1965, Tuckman published his Forming Storming Norming Performing model and completed with the fifth stage, Adjourning in 1970s. This model explains that as the team develops maturity and ability, relationships establish, and the leader changes leadership style from Directing (Telling), Coaching, Participative, and Delegating up to Directing (Concluding) [1].

Fig. 1 Tuckman’s Team Development Model[1]

Illustration graph of Tuckman Model Group Development Stages is shown in the next figure[2]:

Fig 2. Tuckman Group Development Stages Model[2]

  1. Development of The Outcome for Alternative

To determine current Emerald AACE 2017 team stage, each individual in team fill the excel format of Tuckman Survey Scoring Template[3][4].

Table.1 – Individual responses from the Tuckman Survey Scoring Template.

  1. Selection Criteria

Based on the above individual’s response, PERT analysis was performed to identify team behavior at P70 because there are differences in team perception.

Table 2. P70 Delphi Technique Result

  1. Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

Based on Table 2, we can conclude team is in Performing stage (indicated by the rank). The team has successful performance, flexible, task roles and helpfulness each other. Style of leadership this stage is “DELEGATING” mode where some leadership is shared by the team.

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

There is only a small difference score result between each phase, this indicates that team has no clear perception of the way your team operates. The team’s performance is highly variable indicate from scattered highest point on each individual (see Table 1). It means the team phase is Storming. Leadership style that should be use is selling or consulting to guide team focus on objective, avoiding friction and emotional issues.

  1. Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation of Result

Team assessment should conduct periodically in two months ahead to capture team phase changing and select appropriate style of leadership, this evaluation can help the team to improve coordination and productivity.

 

References:

  1. Tuckman, B. (1965). Tuckman’s Team Developmental Model. Retrieved from http://www.focusadventure.com/team-building/gallery/tuckmans-team-developmental-model/
  2. Aurora (2013). Bruce Tuckman’s Team Development Model. Retrieved from http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/download.cfm/docid/3C6230CF-61E8-4C5E-9A0C1C81DCDEDCA2
  3. Barkema and Moran. (2013). Scoring The Tuckman Team Maturity Questionnaire Electronically. Retrieved from http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Documents/pdf
  4. Barkema and Moran. (2013). Tuckman Survey Scoring Template. Retrieved from http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Documents/pdf
  5. D, Ricky. (2015). W1_RD_Leadership|GARUDA AACE 2015. Retrieved from https://garudaaace2015.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/w1_rd_leadership-style-analysis-by-using-tuckman-model/
  6. Yushadi, E. (2015). W1_EY_Leadership|GARUDA AACE 2015. Retrieved from https://garudaaace2015.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/w1_ey_leadership-style-analysis-by-using-tuckman-model/
  7. Laksono, Andhy. (2014). W1_AL_Tuckman|KRISTAL AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/w1_al_tuckman-analysis-assignment/
  8. Pariangan, Wilson R. (2014). W1_WRP_Tuckman|KRISTAL AACE 2014. Retrieved from https://garudaaace2015.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/w1_wrp_tuckman-analysis-assignment/