W16 – ABM- Follow up on Learning Curve for Trestle Barrier Wall Construction at SPJ – 12B

  1. PROBLEM DEFINITION

Further to Week 5 & 7 blogs  on the construction of trench RC barrier for SPJ – 12B project and the effects of Learning curve on production we would now like to review production results observed over the past 12 weeks and assess the actual learning curve parameters and make an assessment of the total predicted man hours to complete the entire 1330 Lm of barrier wall – based on actual productivity figures

2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Two types of learning curves will be assessed for the purpose of assessing the actual learning curve parameters

  • Unit Learning and;
  • Cumulative average

3. DEVELOPMENT OF OUTCOMES

Selecting the correct learing curve will be critical in estimating the total man hours to complete the works. The total hours (or cost) determined using the Unit Linear method will be the sum of the unit costs however the Cumulative Average linear, the total hours (or costs) will be the unit values times the total number of units up to that point.

Productivities for planned as well as actual cumulative figures are outlined in table 1 below

Contractor has performance from 12th August to the 3rd November is further broken down as per table 2 below.

Note that the Unit Linear figures are based on the weekly average.

To determine which curve can be used to estimate the total man hours at completion we must first evaluate which is most reliable. To achieve this we will perform a regression analysis on both sets of data and determine the R^2 or coefficient of determination.

4. SELECTION CRITERIA

The option which provides a R^2 value  closer to 1.0 will be regarded as representative or best fit of the data. An R^2 of 0.9 or better is considered a good fit however a result of less than 0.9 may mean the resultant equation doe not adequately represent the data that are being analysed.

 5. ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVES  

Both the Unit linear and Cumulative average are plotted on the graph below including the corresponding R^2 values and equations for each set of data and best fit curves

The Blue line indicates the cumulative average whilst the red dashed line indicates the Unit Linear and whilst the  R^2 for the cumulative average is closer to 1.0 than the unit linear, both options are below 0.9 indicating that the line of best fit or equation may not accurately represent the data.

6. Selection of the Preferred alternative

Whilst neither curve satisfies the requirement of an R^2 value <0.9, the cumulative average may provide the best chance of estimating total man hours at completion

Based on the figure 1 above, the learning rate of the cumulative average-time model is the anit-log of 10^-0.246*log(2) = 84.32%

The cumulative average is determined by =464*67^(log(0.8432)/log(2) = 165 mnhrs /unit with a total number of direct labour hours estimated as 11,047 (165*67 units)

6. Performance Monitoring

The range of the figures obtained from the field data would indicate that there is too much variance in the data to allow for the development of an equation that allows accurate forecasting.

The labour figures and productivities above are based on weekly averages and these will include non productive periods and man hours associated with delays from weather, concrete supply, etc.

It may be advisable to eliminate some of the data points which include excessive delay periods or exclude non productive man hours from the total figures.

Also consideration needs to be given to any changes in actual crew members  and the impact that this may have on the crews overall productivity.

Further assessments will be over the next 2-3 weeks with a closer assessment of man hours spent during disruption or delay periods.

References

  1. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., & Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 3 – Learning and Improvement., pp.110-112.
  2. Humphreys, G.C 2011 Project Management Using Earned Value Humphreys associates, Management Consultants. Second Edition, pp 435-440
  3. Dennis F. Togo, Curivlinear Analysis of Learning for Cost Estimation.  Retrieved from http://http://www.swdsi.org
 

W15-ABM-Developing the BCWS Recovery Curve using IEAC-Part 2

  1. Problem Definition

Following my Week 14 assessment of IEAC, 4 methods were used to calculate the EAC.

After reviewing each method, IEAC 3 was determined to be the most suitable however  this still implied that the Estimated Cost at completion would be some 183% above original Budget. This is unrealistic and would appear to be an over estimate of remaining cost.

Another method is now required to determine the IEAC and this weeks blog will assess further alternatives.

2. Feasible Alternatives

Last week we considered IEAC1-4 which can be described as;

  • IEAC1 = ACWP + ((BAC – BCWP) / CPI)
  • IEAC2 = ACWP + ((BAC – BCWP) / SPI)
  • IEAC3 = ACWP + ((BAC – BCWP) / CPI * SPI)
  • IEAC4 = ACWP + ((BAC – BCWP) / ((0.2 * SPI) + (0.8 * CPI))

This week we will assess the IEAC using pproductivity  and unit cost referred to as IEAC 5.

3. Development of the Alternatives

IEAC 5 method considers the Actual productivity or unit cost of work completed to date as the basis for predicting the cost of balance works.

As noted in my week 13 blog, BCWS,BCWP and ACWP figures during Week 0 were calculated in line with the nominated split and weightages provided in notes. This has created some inconsistencies in the reporting figures where by earned values are limited by an pre determined arbitrary weighting which is misaligned with BCWS and ACWP figures – wrongly indicating that productivity is low.

As such, inclusion of week 0 figures in any productivity assessment would not provide an accurate indication of how many hours (or cost) have  been spent to date on actual tasks to establish a correct unit cost.

As such we will exclude week 0 costs and earned value and make an assessment of Productivity based on week 1 to 13 only.

Table 1 below summarises budget and estimate productivity based on the total work units required to completed the course;

CPI is based upon comparison of Budget and Actual unit cost of for works completed from weeks 1 to 13 and indicates that 3 out 5 are operating under budget.

Unit costs associated with weekly blogs and reports are however significantly over budget when considered on a unit cost basis.

Table 2 further outlines the IEAC for method 5.

4. Selection Criteria

The same selection criteria is to be applied as per week 13 blog.

  1. Realistic
  2. Reduce chance of further increases / changes

5. Comparison of the Alternatives

Table 3 outlines comparisons between all 5 methods

IEAC 5 provides the lowest IEAC ($27,717) compared to the previously preferred methods IEAC 1 & 4 ($33,233) which was also determined using CPI figures without any allowance for week 0.

6. Selection of Alternatives

IEAC 5 is considered more appropriate as a method for assessing my own IEAC. It ignores the week 0 anomalies and uses the actual unit cost of works completed so far to estimate . Unit costs do however still include learning curve inefficiencies during early phases and as such, productivity is expected to improve and assist with final cost

7. Performance Monitoring

Current Dashboard to include weekly assessment of IEAC based on unit productivity and cost – excluding week 0 figures.

References

  1. W09_SJP_Forecasts retrieved 5 November 2107 from https://js-pag-cert-2017.com/w09_sjp_forecasts
  2. Chapter  9.5 – Performance Monitoring Progress – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet).  Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com
  3. National Defence Industrial Association. (2014). A Guide to managing programs using predictive measures.
 

W14-ABM-Developing the BCWS recovery curve using IEAC


Problem Definition

Further to my Week 13 blog and the development of new baseline schedule, the development of a revised BCWS (early and late curve is required).

The new BCWS curve must assess the extent of balance works and the forecast cost required to complete. To support this process we will now look at the current Estimate at Completion figures and use these estimates to help establish recovery BCWS curves.

Calculating the IEAC can be performed using a number of different methods  and this blog will look at each method and its suitability in supporting the development of recovery BCWS figures/curves.

Feasible Alternatives

EAC data will be assessed at both the Programme and Project levels using the following methods;

  • IEAC1 = ACWP + ((BAC – BCWP) / CPI)
  • IEAC2 = ACWP + ((BAC – BCWP) / SPI)
  • IEAC3 = ACWP + ((BAC – BCWP) / CPI * SPI)
  • IEAC4 = ACWP + ((BAC – BCWP) / ((0.2 * SPI) + (0.8 * CPI))

Development of the Alternatives

Table 01 below is taken from the NDIA/GPC and outlines the assumptions and considerations when using each of the 4 forecasting tools.

Table 01

Each of the techniques will be assessed using project data from Week 13 as per table below. i.e An EAC will be assessed for each individual project / deliverable.

Table 01 – Project Performance Data (week 13)

Selection Criteria

The following criteria will be used to assess the preferred method of establishing the EAC and using to establish a revised BCWS curve for the recovery schedule

  • EAC takes account of Scope which was previously “underestimated” for  and is corrected for balance activities
  • EAC is realistic but also reduces the risk of reporting further increases i.e. pessimistic.
  • Forecast costs accurately reflect the remaining scope

Comparison of the Alternatives

EAC results for each method and level are provided under table 2.0

Table 02 – IEAC Results

The original BAC for all 6 projects was estimated at $20,700 however IEAC calculated using the 4 methods above predict a cost overrun in the range of +20,060 to $62,936 above BAC.

Analysis of these results is as follows

  1. Project 6 – Bid Project:Project 6 is yet to commence and appears to be influenced by a imbalance in ACWP & BCWP figures taken from Week 0 milestone split. CPI and SPI figures for this project are not considered to be reflective of the actual remaining works and it may be more suitable to ignore this section from the EAC calculation and continue to rely on the original BAC.
  2. This imbalance from week 0 split is also observed in projects 2 and 5 where hours recorded within week 0 account for the bulk of current ACWP despite relatively low BCWP recorded. This skews the CPI and SPI figures
  3. IEAC3 – A result of $83,636 is not considered realistic and appears to be influenced by the late starts made on cheat sheet and Bid project (See above).
  4. It can be seen that there is a major difference between the EAC figures calculated at the programme level and those which have been calculated using performance data from each individual project.

Selection of Alternative

From the above, IEAC3 will not be considered as it is not considered realistic and appears to be overly pessimistic.

IEAC 2 is not considered appropriate given the impact of skew to SPI figures due to heavy reliance on SPI and limitations within later part of project.

Whilst IEAC 1 and 4 have produced values which are almost identical in value, IEAC 4 is considered the most appropriate given its partial consideration of SPI ensuring that figures are not overly optimistic.

However adjustment of the Total EAC to account for Project 6 (BID) will be made to take account of unrealistic EAC figures generated when using the reported CPI and SPI figures. This adjustment would be relevant to all options regardless. EAC for project 6 will be based on 100% of BAC.

Finally, to ensure that the accuracy of the EAC is maintained in all areas of the programme, the IEAC will be based on the cumulative EAC value for all 6 projects and not based on the programme level CPI and SPI figures. ($35,186)

With respect to the development of revised BCWS curve, the EAC values to be used are as follows;

Table 03 – IEAC FINAL

Performance Monitoring

Whilst adjustment of BCWS figures is not considered a regular event, the  monitoring of IEAC figures is a continual process and must be undertaken regularly. IEAC4 is recommended for use within weekly reporting against the new BCWS recovery curve.

References

  1. W09_SJP_Forecasts retrieved 5 November 2107 from https://js-pag-cert-2017.com/w09_sjp_forecasts
  2. Chapter  9.5 – Performance Monitoring Progress – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet).  Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com
  3. National Defense Industrial Association. (2014). A Guide to managing programs using predictive measures.

 

 

W13_ABM-Preparing Recovery Schedule for Emerald Group

Problem Definition

Emerald Group AACE 2017 is now facing serious issues with cost overruns and schedule delays when compared to original baseline.

Based on week 12 report, the group has recorded the following key progress indicators;

The programme is now critically delayed with only 39.8% complete despite 58.9% of total schedule time lapsed. SPI and BEI and figures further support this at status. This data translates to a 5 week delay on the completion of all deliverables unless action is taken to recover.

Key deliverables which are now considered as critical are summarised in below table;

In addition to the poor SPI and CPI figures, BEI metrics which compare planned and actually completed tasks indicate serious delay to the commencement of cheat sheet and problem solving projects. This delayed commencement is likely to be the result of delayed completion to 2500 word papers as well as time sunk in rectifying weekly reporting.

Based on the above, and the groups assessment of a 5 week programme delay, this represents a difference greater than 10% of the overall duration and CFH has now requested that the works be rescheduled indicate how the balance works are to be completed by the contract date.

In developing a recovery programme, the group can utilise 2 different methods. this blog will look at each method and decide which is most suitable for the recovery schedule.

Feasible Alternatives

There are 2 methods to create a new baseline or recovery schedule when using EVM. These include;

Option 1:Leave ACWP and BCWP to date unchanged. Change BCWS(early) and BCWS(Late) date curves showing the impact of changes against revised dates.

Option 2:Set BCWS (early) and BCWS(late) dates to ACWP date. Reschedule remaining works to original dates or revised dates

Development of the Alternatives

When considering Option 1, the method would generally rely on a specific event or change order to be agreed with CFH. This event(s) would provide the basis for amending the original baseline and may reflect omission or additional scope, acceleration efforts, etc.

Option 2, primarily focuses upon the remaining works from the date of rebaselining and the way in which it will be executed.

At this stage, there has been no agreement to revise completion dates. As such all deliverables must be completed by week 24 (**Jan 2018) implying that BCWS (early & late) curves to target 100% completion by the original dates.

Selection Criteria

The following criteria must be satisfied;

  • Planned progress is realigned with actual progress to date to eliminate current reporting delay
  • Allows for accurate tracking and monitoring of remaining works and costs to compete all deliverables by week 26

Comparison of the alternatives

Option 1 is only really suited to situations where there has been a series of changes in scope or definable events that have caused the BCWS to change i.e. variations

The delay and cost overrun observed within Emerald Team programme is a result of delayed execution of the activities by the group members,  including inefficient use of time and resources such that activities have not been completed within the planned durations and budgets. Initial estimates for time and cost may have also been insufficient leading to overspend and schedule delays.

They are not the result of scope changes.

Option 2 however requires lowering /realignment of the BCWS to meet the actual ACWP allowing for the return of the group’s reporting status to a neutral position.

The future BCWS curves would then be rescheduled by the team members to support stipulated completion dates

Selection of Alternatives

Option 2 appears to satisfy all criteria and will allow for the immediate elimination of perceived delay within the works as well as focusing upon the rescheduling of works to achieve original completion dates. Option 1 is not considered suitable in this instance.

Performance Monitoring

Group Members when preparing their recovery schedules should complete the following tasks

  1. Revise BCWS figures from week 13 onwards such that BCWS (early and late) are equal to ACWP
  2. Retain original completion dates as per CFH and re estimate time and cost budgets (BCWS) from week 13 onwards.
  3. Include both a early and late curve
  4. Assess and consider remaining work scope compared to remaining time and evaluate potential for scope reductions to support achievement of project objectives
  5. Review duration estimates previously used and update where observed to be incorrect
  6. Assess ability to increase working hours and potential to reduce vacation time previously planned.

References

1. Chapter  9.5 – Performance Monitoring Progress – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet).  Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com

2. Humphreys, G.C 2011 Project Management Using Earned Value Humphreys associates, Management Consultants. Second Edition, pp 599-610

3. GAO (December 2015). GAO Schedule Assessment Guide, Best Practices for Project Schedules pages 135-145.
Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d093sp.pdf

 

 

W12-ABM-Hire or Purchase new vehicle (Malaysia or Singapore)

Problem Definition

Wife requires new vehicle to travel to and from work.

She is required to travel between Singapore and Malaysia daily. There is a large difference in price between Singapore vehicles and Malaysian vehicles  however Malaysian cars are imposed a high entry tax by Singapore government meaning higher daily running costs

Leasing or rental of a vehicle offers certain convenience however monthly cost is also high. At the moment, she lease’s (rent) a Singapore registered vehicle to avoid paying high daily entry (VEP) taxes.

A comparison of cost is now required between leasing and buying a vehicle to determine if purchasing a vehicle is more economical from both a short and long term perspective.

Purchase options 4 alternatives with each containing its own advantages and disadvantages i.e high purchase prices for Singapore registered cars but low finance and high resale value compared to Malaysian vehicles which have low purchase prices but higher finance rates and running costs as well as lower resale values.

This blog will determine whether purchasing a vehicle is better financially than leasing based on a 5 year period. If will also consider which purchase option is best.

Feasible Alternatives

The following alternatives will be considered

  1. Leasing of Singapore registered Vehicle
  2. Leasing of Malaysian registered Vehicle
  3. Purchasing New Malaysian registered vehicle
  4. Purchasing Used Malaysian  registered Vehicle
  5. Purchasing New Singapore registered Vehicle
  6. Purchasing Used Singapore registered Vehicle

Development of the Alternatives

Figures and valuations will be based on the same (or equivalent) vehicle type and all values will be assessed using Ringgit as the currency.

A time frame of 5 years will be used to assess the alternatives with partial financing. Minimum Deposit requirements, loan terms and interest rates all vary between Singapore and Malaysia.

Refer to the Following table which outlines the vehicle values, finance terms, etc

An MARR of 6% will be used in the assessment of each option as this represents an equivalent interest rate for alternative investments or loan rates where funds could be otherwise be used to reduce ongoing interest charges.

Leasing options do not carrying any operating costs associated with insurance, road tax,etc and obviously carry no resale or residual value at the end of hire

Purchase options for new and used Malaysian registered vehicles are based on a higher minimum deposit percentage as well as a finance on balance. Term of loan for Foreigners is limited to 1 year meaning that the rate of repayment is very high. Resale / residual values are based on current MV for v ehicles on similar age

Purchase options for Singapore vehicle

Selection Criteria 

Final Selection of the preferred alternative will be based on the following

  1. Lowest overall cost considering all factors such as annual operating costs, financing as expected resale or salvage values expected at the end of the study period. This will be expressed as a present worth with costs considered as negative cash outflows. Thus the PW value which is highest or least negative will be regarded as most preferred.
  2. Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC). We will also consider the EUAC which reflects

Comparison of Alternatives 

The Present Worth of each option is as follows

From the table, Option 5 has the highest present worth. This is surprising given the value of the car is almost 4 times the price of the same vehicle in Malaysia

As can be seen in the above table, whilst depreciation rates are higher, the MV after 5 years is significantly higher than Malaysian vehicles and do not suffer the same level of annual cost when considering government imposed taxes on foreign vehicles

The EUAC of each option is as follows

Again, option 5 provides the minimum (lowest) uniform annual cost over nominated economic life span. Again, this appears to be influenced be the following factors

  1. Lower interest rates and longer loan terms
  2. High resale values available at the end of the period
  3. Capital recovery is actually lower for Singapore cars due to lower deposit requirements i.e. RM89k v RM145k for new vehicle capital investment in year 1. This means that less upfront capital is required in the first 1 year. values not considered excessively more despite the value of the vehicle being multiples more than local equivalent.

Selection of Alternative 

From the above, Option 5 (Purchase New Singapore vehicle) has satisfied both selection criteria with highest Present Worth and Lowest EUAC confirming that purchasing a new car from Singapore will result in the least overall cost overall as well as an annual basis.

This result has been surprising and was not expected!!!

Current practice of renting a vehicle needs to stopped as soon as possible.

Performance Monitoring 

Before finalising the selection, the following factors must be further researched;

  1. Resale value of Singapore vehicles
  2. Available Singapore interest rates
  3. Currency fluctuations
  4. Maintenance costs

Using Option 5 as the preferred option, the Economic life of the vehicle should be established. In the above example, 5 years may actually be past the maximum time for retention of the asset.

References

  1. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., & Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 4 – The Time Value of Money, pp.427-466. Prentice Hall.
  2. W10_UDS_Replacement Analysis: Keep Old Car or Buy New Car retrieved from http://emeraldaace2017.com/2017/10/11/w10_uds_replacem…r-or-buy-new-car
  3. Singapore Car resale values retrieved from http://www.sgcarmart.com/main/index.php
  4. Malaysian Car Resale Values retrieved from https://www.carlist.my/
  5. Singapore Vehicle Entry Tax regulations retrieved from https://www.lta.gov.sg/…singapore/vehicle-entry-permit-vep-fees-toll-charge-and-reci…
 

W11_ABM_Methods for Calculation of BCWS

Problem Definition

In creating the weekly report for Team Emerald, the group noticed that other groups had calculated their BCWS figures differently using the planned completion percentages x BAC figures instead of creating a cost loaded schedule and S-Curve.

This blog will consider what are the differences between each approach and can 1 method be considered more correct than the other.

Feasible Alternatives

Method 1: Calculate BCWS using S-Curve or cost loaded programme bas

Method 2: Using the BAC figures calculated at end of method 1 above, calculate the weekly BCWS base on planned progress multiplied by BAC.

Development of the Alternatives

The BCWS is also known as the “Planned value” (PV) as well as the Performance Management Baseline (PMB)

Ultimately, the BCWS defined as the BCWS is the sum of the budget items for all work packages, planning packages, and overhead which was scheduled for the period. It can be compared to the Cost budget or what is planned to be spent.

Under Method 1, this is calculated by developing a cost or resource loaded programme from which an S-Curve is produced. refer to Figure Below which represents the early and late curves for Team Emerald’s entire programme. Each Team member (Resource) has made a weekly estimate of their hours required to complete the required deliverables.

In developing their schedules and progamme, the following factors have been considered;

  • Total Weekly contribution
  • Sequence in which hours are allocated to projects
  • Anticipated Variances in weekly hours/costs due to availability, etc
  • Non Working Times due to holidays, etc

Hours are then converted to costs on a week by week basis and summed over the full period of the progamme to determine the BAC (Budget at Completion).

Under Method 2, the BCWS is determined using the formula of Total Budget cost or BAC x Planned Schedule %

The Planned schedule progress is determined by reference to the project deliverables and each deliverable carries its own weight with respect to the overall programme as well as method of calculating progress.

Selection Criteria

  • ACWP figures can be compared against BCWS accurately on a week by week basis
  • BCWS reflects any fluctuations in resource usage or allocation

Comparison of the Alternatives

Refer to Figure 2 below for a comparison of each BCWS calculated using Method 1 and Metho 2.

Note that there is a large differencebetween the 2 methods at week 1. Under Method 2, the BCWS value is approximately $12k less than method.

This variance is due to a misalignment between the first project milestone and the planned costs for Week 0.

The project includes a milestone after week 0 which has been valued by the programme Owner as equivalent to 8% of the total project – 115 from 1500.

However after completing an estimate of the hours and cost, the total cost for Week 0 is equivalent to 18% of the BAC!!

Method 2 therefore reports a BCWS based upon the programme’s weightage allocation and this percentages has no relationship to the estimated hours or costs spent during the Week 0 period and as such are misleading.

Similarly, the use of Incremental Milestone Techniques to determine planned percentage for deliverables i.e. Paper Topic instead of units in place for deliverables such as blog postings, problem solving, etc also contributes to difference in BCWS figures between the 2 methods.

Similarly, non work periods predicted around week 22 to 23 are not reflected under method 2.

Selection of the Alternative

As can be seen the determination of BCWS figures using the planned progress % and BAC figure does allow for an accurate comparison with ACPW figures due to the fact that Planned progress % and planned Expenditure are not always aligned due to factors such as

  • Resource usage may vary from time to time
  • Resource Usage is not aligned with Deliverable weightage
  • Method of calculating Progress percentage

Calculation of BCWS using a Cost loaded Schedule is the most accurate method when comparing on a week by week basis

Performance Monitoring

The Use of Method 2 could be considered if resource usage was aligned with planned progress percentage. This would likely require the milestones weightage closely reflects planned cost or effort

References

1. Chapter  9.1 – Introduction to Managing Progress – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet).  Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com

2. Humphreys, G.C 2011 Project Management Using Earned Value Humphreys associates, Management Consultants. Second Edition, pp 512-515

3.Earned Value Management – Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS) (2017) retrieved from http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/tasks/budgeted-cost-of-work-scheduled

 

 

W8.1 – Sulphur Product Handling Jetty – Applying a standardised WBS (Part 2)

Problem Definition

Under my week 7 blog, we considered the use of a 3D WBS and the most suitable Omniclass table using the standard dimensions of ZONE (ZBS), ACTIVITY (ABS) and PRODUCT (PBS).

This is only 1 combination and can be expanded to include other aspects of a projects performance to enhance visibility. This expansion will take the form of additional breakdown structures as well as different combinations with each providing a unique and different perspective on the project.

And whilst there could be a large number of combinations available, the selection of the preferred combination(s) will largely depend on stakeholder requirements.

In this blog we will stay with the SPJ – package 12B project and use the EPCC Contractor as the Stakeholder and consider some typical requirements which an EPCC contractor may have when analysing their works and progress of the package 12B project.

We will establish which Combination of Breakdown structure should be considered to provide the EPCC with a clear view of those aspects which it considered important.

Once a determination of most relevant combination is made, we will select the most appropriate Omniclass table to support the Break down structure and filtering options.

Feasible Alternatives

We will consider the following breakdown structures in a 3 dimensional combination;

If we limit to only 3 dimensions, or fields, then the maximum number of permutation is as follows;

Development of the Alternatives

Each Breakdown Structure provides the EPCC with a unique set of information. This may be summarised as follows;

Selection Criteria

We will consider the following aspects as the basis for determining which are the relevant WBS combinations and dimensions;

Comparison of Alternatives

By considering the needs of each monitoring requirement and then relating these needs to the relevant breakdown structure, we can reduce the number of combinations to only 10.

Selection of the Alternatives

As determined under the week 7 blog posting, the relevant omniclass tables which would support the package 12B project scope were;

  • PRODUCT / SYSTEM- Table 23
  • PHASE – Table 31(2006)
  • AREA – Table 14
  • WORK ACTIVITIES – Table 22

The same tables could be used to establish the project ABS (Table 22&31), PRBS(table 23) and ZBS (Table 14) as noted above. The Omniclass table 35 & 33 would support the RSBS and definition of plant and labour.

Performance Monitoring

The development of Breakdown structures for elements such as CTBS/ CLBS and CHBS would require project specific formats and structures. Combining these formats with the Omniclass system would require further assessment and considerations

References

1. OmniClass. (2014). About OmniClass. Retrieved from OmniClass: http://www.omniclass.org/

2. Moine J-Y. 2013.3D Work Breakdown Structure Method, PM Word Journal Vol. II, Issue IV–April 2013

3.Combinatoric: Generator of Combinations. Retrieved from https://planetcalc.com/3757/

4. Chapter 3.4 creating the WBS – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet).  Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

W7.2- Sulphur Product Handling Jetty – Applying a Standarised WBS Structure

Problem Definition

RAPID package 12B – Sulphur Product handling Jetty is a multi disciplined package which forms part of the RAPID development in Johor Malaysia for PETRONAS.

The facility is being constructed to allow the facility OWNER to perform 2 primary functions;

  • Sell and transfer sulphur by product created from refining process
  • Import materials and equipment stored within shipping containers received via Container ships to support RAPID operations.

It is an EPCC style project and can be characterised by the following;

  1. The Project has 3 distinct FUNCTIONS
    • Common Operation/System
    • Sulphur Handling System
    • Container handling System
  2. The project includes 4 distinct PHASES
    • Engineering
    • Procurement
    • Construction and;
    • Commissioning
  3. The Project has 2 distinct AREAS
    • Offshore
    • Onshore
  4. The project has 5 distinct WORK PACKAGES
    • Offshore / Marine
    • Onshore Civil
    • Building Architectural
    • MEP Systems
    • Material Handling Systems

Given the projects complexity and multi disciplined requirements, could a standardised WBS structure such as OMNICLASS be applied? And which tables are the most suitable for the development of a 3D WBS ensuring the schedule user (EPC Contractor) is provided with maximum potential to review and monitor multiple project facets.

FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Omniclass consists of 15 tables, each of which represents a different facet of construction information. Each table can be used independently to classify a particular type of information, or entries on it can be combined with entries on other tables to classify more complex subjects

The 15 inter-related Omniclass tables are;

When using the omniclass coding structure with a 3D WBS, coding will be applied in the following way;

  • ZBS    : Table 13, Table 14, or Table 21
  • PBS    : Table 11, Table 12, Table 23, or Table 36
  • ABS    : Table 22, Table 31, or Table 32
  • OBS    : Table 33 or Table 34
  • RBS    : Table 35
  • Task    : Table 41 or Table 49

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Considering the different project facets, there are a large number of combination the schedule user may want to view the project which is represented by the following matrix;

To support this ability, a 3D WBS structure must be created.

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

There are in fact more dimensions than these 3, however for the purpose of this post we will consider only the minimum in order to create the 3D WBS- ZBS,PBS & ABS.

The ZBS,ABS,PBS can be further simplified as ZBS = where, PBS =What and ABS=How.

For SPJ – package 12B these WBS structures will be applied as following;

 

SELECTION CRITERIA

Selection of tables to develop the WBS will be based on the following criteria

– Defines high level of detail i.e. is directly relevant and hierarchical
– Provides opportunity of its future development when industry change
– Cover’s all Project deliverables up to Completion.
– Strong relationship among its element

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

To establish which Tables are more suited for creation of the 3D WBS, we will use a multi attribute decision model to check for Dominance among the alternatives and eliminate tables which cannot support the desired code structure. Refer to below

When selecting suitable Table for defining the project FUNCTION’s, it was noted that table 11 and 12 were not considered suitable. Table 11 refers mainly to the overall facility function and purpose however in our case we are attempting to split the function. Table 12 similar cannot be related to the specific project functions. Under table 23, suitable descriptions are available for conveyor and Material handling Systems such that the WBS can define and further breakdown the 2 primary functions for the facility

When selecting the most suitable table for defining the project PHASE, it was noted that table 22 is more suitable for the physical implementation aspects as opposed to the high level division of project disciplines (Engineering, Procurement, Construction). Table 31 and 32 both offer opportunity to be used however preference would be to use the Table 31 2006 version which has a clear breakdown of the co ordination  and implementation phases. It would also require the project phase structure to be modified to suit the code structure i.e. instead of EPCC, the project would need to be divided into Design/Co Ordination/Implementation/ Handover however this is not considered to be a major issue such that adoption of table 31 could not proceed.

When selecting the most suitable table for defining the project AREA, it was noted that table 14 is considered the most appropriate providing opportunity to define onshore and offshore areas clearly.

When selecting the most suitable table for defining the project WORK PACKAGE, table 22 was considered most appropriate. It covers all the required aspects, onshore, offshore, MEP and material handling aspects with sufficient detail and relevance.

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The Following tables are considered most relevant for the creation of a 3D WBS for SPJ-Package 12B project.

  • FUNCTION – Table 23
  • PHASE – Table 31(2006)
  • AREA – Table 14
  • WORK PACKAGES – Table 22

Performance Monitoring and Post Evaluation of Results

In the next post we will implement the chosen tables to create a level 3 project WBS to assess the effectiveness to Omniclass code structure within a  multi disciplined EPCC project containing offshore and onshore work components.

We will also consider the allocation of additional tables for the allocation and tracking of resources against the programme activities.ie. materials, plant, trades. This will enable more dimensions of the WBS to be created

Whilst these tables have been selected based on most suitable compared to the alternatives, their actual use and effectiveness when creating the fully detailed WBS is still to be tested and or compared with other standardised coding systems.

Reference:

1. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., & Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. 

2. OmniClass. (2014). About OmniClass. Retrieved from OmniClass: http://www.omniclass.org/

3. Chapter 3.4 creating the WBS – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet).  Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com

4. Moine J-Y. 2013.3D Work Breakdown Structure Method, PM Word Journal Vol. II, Issue IV–April 2013

 

 

W7 – ABM- Assessment of Productivity and Learning Curve for Trestle Barrier Wall Construction at SPJ – 12B (PART 2)

  1. PROBLEM DEFINITION

Further to Week 5 blog  on the construction of trench RC barrier for SPJ – 12B project and the effects of Learning curve on production, it was determined that the Contractors expected productions gains due to increased familiarities and repetition cannot be solely relied on to achieve required weekly production output and meet target schedule dates.

Subcontractor must now look at other alternatives to increase production. Based on current projections, we can expect a 30 day delay in works if we solely reply on productivity gains from learning curve effect.

Works scope / details areoutlined are as follows

We will now assess alternatives to increase production

2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives were considered under Week 5 blog. alternative 1 was determined to be unacceptable. we will now consider items 2 & 3 i.e. changes to manpower quantity and working times;

  1. Do nothing. Barrier can be completed by the specified dates
  2. Increasing manpower in current crews (current planned – 10 men)
  3. Increasing overtime / hours worked each day

3. DEVELOPMENT OF OUTCOMES

 Do Nothing. Production of crews will achieved necessary production and dates

This was determined to be unacceptable with a likely delay of 30 days to result due to average manhours / unit unlikely to drop sufficiently enough to be covered by the Subcontractors current manpower planning.

Extending Manpower in current crews

Subcontractor plans to use a 10 man crew to erect formwork, install cast in items, cast concrete and then strip.

Firstly we will assess current productivities for the crews;

Using data obtained from site from the 4th to the 9th September, crews were able to construct a 35m length of wall plus a further 35m of 75m high kicker (base for wall).

By measuring manpower and output we have determined basic productivities for the main elements of the wall construction. this is outlined in Figure 1 below. Total manhours for the week based on the 6 man crew have also bee determined to assist in calculating a utilisation factor. Refet to Figure 2.

Using this information, and assuming that the actual productivities determined with the smaller crew reflect the unit rate work requirements, an estimate of the total manhours required to construct 100Lm of barrier wall each week is outlined under figure 3.

Based on the required weekly work quantities and current productivities, a total of 17 men is now required to meet the target production of 90Lm per wee

Increasing Overtime / hours worked each day

As can be seen in the figures above, a total man hour requirement of some 1020 hrs must be invested into the work each week to satisfy the quantities demanded by the production schedule, this cannot be satisfied with working overtime alone using a 6 or even 10 man crew

Whilst the productivities above were computed using a 70 hour working week for the crews, these figures have been taken from a single week where the previous working week included extended public holidays and crew working hours were considered low.i.e. productivities are not impacted by fatigue.

In a scenario where by effort is sustained over consecutive weeks, production losses due to fatigue are likely to affect, particularly given the use of heavy steel formwork and minimal plant to assist in shifting formwork.

To reflect this effect we will assume a 10% loss going from a 58 hour work week to 70 hour  i.e. each man is only 90% effective then the required man hour input is as follows;

Under this scenario, a minimum of 16 men would be required to satisfy schedule and production requirements.

4. SELECTION CRITERIA

Satisfy man hour requirements based on observed production levels and weekly quantity targets (90Lm) using least number of men.

 5. ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVES  

Based on the above, an increase in the above manpower to 16 men is considered most appropriate given this will result in the least amount of men however having “a few extra” is never a bad idea for critical works.

In the next blog, an analysis of programme impact potential will be considered to determine if target production figures are excessive / unnecessary.

6. Performance Monitoring

During last week, the crews managed to cast 2no. 16.5m sections of wall using a 6 man crew. These were effectively the 5 and 6th Cycle of casting.

The total hours expended to achieve the 33Lm of wall was 420 hours.

This equates to a total of 250mhrs / 20m section of wall.

Based on the learning curve analysis conducted under week 5, by the sixth cycle, the expected man hours required to construct every 20Lm of wall using a predicted gain of 20% i.e. 80% learning curve with an initial effort of 447 mnhrs was 334 hrs.

However the above results indicate crews are operating closer to a 70% learning curve. This may result in the further reduction in average manhour / unit from 177 hrs/unit to only 100 hrs/unit. refer to attached graph below

Further monitoring to be conducted on both overall production as well as individual productivities to assess both learning curve gains and fatigue impact where working hours include excessive overtime.

References

  1. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., & Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 3 – Learning and Improvement., pp.110-112.
  2. Chapter 11.5 Managing Project Data Basis  – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet). Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com
  3. Chapter 9.5 Project Performance Forecasting – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet).  Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com

 

 

 

 

W5 – ABM- Assessment of Productivity and Learning Curve for Trestle Barrier Wall Construction at SPJ – 12B

  1. PROBLEM DEFINITION

Construction of Reinforced Concrete Barrier wall has commenced along trestle deck at SPJ – package 12B. Work scope includes erection of steel formwork barrier, installation of cast in items and steel angles, casting of concrete and stripping of forms. Rebar is already installed by separate crews working in advance.

Casting works commenced on the 12th August with an initial target completion date of 1st December  (15 weeks) however Subcontractor has constructed only 30Lm of wall since the 12th August and it appears that the Subcontractor will struggle to achieve his average target production of 90Lm/week however subcontractor is still very much in a learning curve phase and work force levels have not reached planned targets as such, rate of production (units / week) is expected to increase over time as crews become more familiar and numbers increase.

Works scope / details are as follows

We must now determine if the Subcontractor will be able to meet the programme using an analysis of his production to date whilst making  allowances for anticipated increases in productivity obtained through repetition and learning curve phases.

2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Using data from the last 2 weeks and with consideration of improvements expected as more units are produced, we will assess the cumulative average time to complete each unit/ wall section and compare against his planned figures.

From there will look at whether the current programme and manning levels are realistic and will result in the barrier being completed in time. From this we develop an action plan based upon the following alternatives;

  1. Do nothing. Barrier can be completed by the specified dates
  2. Increasing manpower in current crews (current planned – 10 men)
  3. Increasing overtime / hours worked each day
  4. Extending the programme/ time for completion.
  5. Adding a separate crew and operating with 2 work fronts

3. DEVELOPMENT OF OUTCOMES

 Do Nothing. Production of crews will achieved necessary production and dates

Using the predicted total man hours per section we can estimate the total manhours to complete all 67 sections. Based on current planning the Subcontractor will take 8,643 hours or 90 working days to complete the works.

Extending Manpower in current crews

Increasing manpower may be considered up to a point, there will come a point that more men will not increase production and may in fact reduce output as resources become more and more inefficient. Subcontractor plans to use a 10 man crew to erect formwork, install cast in items, cast concrete and then strip.

Increasing Overtime / hours worked each day

Similar to manpower increases, crews will lose productivity when hours worked are extended.

Standard working hours on site are already 7am to 6pm Monday to Saturday and 7am to 4pm (58 hours/week).

These working hours are considered standard for Malaysia construction industry and not considered excessive. Labour and fatigue guidelines required under projects head contract stipulates that workers cannot work on average more than 75 hours / week.

Whilst previous estimates of productivity losses due to excessive overtime are based on 40 hours weeks (refer to November, 2001 issue of The Revay Report “Calculating Loss of Productivity Due to Overtime Using Published Charts – Fact or Fiction” by Regula Brunies, FPMI, CCC, CQS and Zey Emir, P.Eng, MBA Revay and Associates Limited ), It is proposed to adjust for local standards but maintain similar productivity loss increments as the quantity of worked hours increase.

  • going from a 58 hour work week to a 70 hour workweek we lose on average 10% productivity;
  • going to a 75 hour workweek we drop 17% to only 83% from the base productivity and
  • Max hours worked will be capped at 75hours/week as per contract.

Extending the programme/ time for completion.

The current target date for completion is the 1st December however prior to this date, 75% of the entire trestle length is to be handed over to Mechanical contractor on the 10th November. i.e 1330Lm x 75% = 998Lm by 10th November.

These works were provided to the Subcontractor as a variation to the main scope and do not include penalties for late completion. Planned target dates are included within the variation order to which the Subcontractor has accepted.

In the event the subcontractor does not complete at least 75% of the planned total by the 10th November, it is likely that the interface issues with the mechanical contractor will arise when conveyor works commence however a detailed assessment of co ordination and interface issues will need to be considered before accepting or discounting this option.

Adding an additional Crew

The inclusion of an additional work crew may be considered where the above 3 options are not determined to be unfeasible however such an option would require the following considerations;

  • Fabrication of new steel formwork system (Minimum 4-6 weeks)
  • Recruitment of new team and skilled foreman (timeline unknown)
  • Learning phase allowances for new crew

4. SELECTION CRITERIA

The option which results in completion of at least 75% of the trestle (or as close to) and there after the earliest completion date for the entire length of the barrier wall. Dates are as follows,

  • 75% completion by the 10th November 2017
  • 100% completion by the 1st December 2017

 5. ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVES  

The Learning curve analysis will be based on crews achieving an 80% learning curve slope and will assess the following aspects;

  • Manhours it will take to cast the last unit (unit 67)
  • The total manhours required to assemble all 67 units
  • The estimated cumulative average manhours for all 67 units

We will commence Assuming a proportional decrease in barrier construction time for output units between doubled quantities, the total manhours needed to construct the last section of barrier wall is calculated by;

 

 From the above table and graph, the cumulative average man hours for the construction of each wall barrier section is 172.15 hours however the planned weekly average man hours for the barrier is estimated as only 129.9 man hours.

This implies that over the 67 units scheduled for construction, there will be a deficit in man hours of (172.15 – 129.9) x 67 units = 2830.75 man hours, which equates to an additional time of 4.88 weeks ( 30 days) of production based upon an 10 man crew working a total of 580 hours / week.

Another way to assess the delay is to consider the SPI. Refer to following table which considers SPI and determines the total forecast duration to be an additional 31 days.

Based on the above, option 1 of the feasible alternatives i.e Do nothing  cannot be considered and an action plan must be developed to determine the correct solution.

In next blog we will analyse and assess alternatives 2 and 3 to increase production levels and satisfy current TARGET dates.

Final Blog will assess alternative 4 – Extend programme and compare all alternatives with final selection of action

Performance Monitoring

Subcontractor will be monitored for the next 2 weeks to further assess their conformance with assumed  learning curve parameters of 80%.

References

  1. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., & Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 3 – Learning and Improvement., pp.110-112.
  2. Humpreys, G. C. (2011). Project Management Using Earned Value (2nd ed.). Chapter 22 Learning Curves. Humpreys & Associates, Inc.
  3. Chapter 11.5 Managing Project Data Basis  – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet). Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com
  4. Chapter 9.5 Project Performance Forecasting – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet).  Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com