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
 

W3-ABM-Justifying the adoption of BIM processes during project tender stage using Non Compensatory decision making models

  1. Problem Recognition

THE Introduction of BIM process into Design and Constriction work flows provides both Owners and Contractors with many advantages however during the tender stage, an owner must decide between use of traditional design and documentation methods or investment in more detailed modeling (BIM) which requires highly specialized management systems and software.

2. Development of Feasible Alternatives 

An owners tendering strategy is dependent upon a large number of factors. For this exercise we will consider typical Design-Bid-Construct scenario using either of the following methods;

Alternative 1 – Owner developed 2D design format with typical project information including detailed archi, Structure, and MEP drawings, BoQ, material/equipment specifications, site data, etc

Alternative 2-Fully developed 3D design and BIM model including co ordinated structural, architectual, MEP designs inclusive of materials and element specifications plus model generated BoQ, site data, etc

3. Development of the Outcomes

Typical attributes to be used in the comparison of the above alternatives are outlined below.

  1. Simplification of design process
  2. Reduced Cost to prepare Tender documentation
  3. Reduce time to prepare Tender documentation
  4. Accurate representation of Project scope and requirements
  5. Flexibility to evaluate possible design options during tender stage
  6. Reduce risk of variations from Contractor

Within this example, there are no monetary or time figures available for the evaluation the alternatives.The following Non compensatory models will be used as the method of comparison;

  • Dominance
  • Lexicograph

Perceived strengths and weaknesses of each alternative shall be used in the assessment.  Some of the advantages BIM is considered to offer over traditional design and documentation processes include;

4. Selection Criteria

The alternative which is considered dominant will be considered as the preferred alternative however if a dominant alternative cannot be determined, a Lexicograph model based on a ranking of attributes will be used.

The ranking shall be based on the preferences / criteria listed in table 1 (Paired Comparison)

In the above example, the owners priorities are to minimise costs for the development of the Detailed design as well as ensuring that the information provided during tender is accurate and represents the project scope. Based on the rankings, second is the Owners desire to reduce risk of unknowns and variations from the Contractor.

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternatives

An Assessment of Dominance among alternatives is outlined in below table based on perceived advantages and disadvantages of BIM process.

A dominant alternative cannot be identified with BIM considered to be superior in only 4 of the 6 attributes.

Under the lexicograph model and the ranking of attributes traditional design processs are determined to

From the ranking of attributes, Cost to develop tender design and Accurate representation of Project scope / Owner requirements are considered priorities to the Owners tender process. This is followed by Owners priority for a reduction in risk of variations (due to poor scope definition).

Whilst tradition tender and 2D design process is considered better in achieving the clients objective of simplifying the design process, BIM can offer a more accurate representation of the project scope and owners requirements through 3D visualization as well as coordinated design process. Given both of these alternatives satisfy each of the top ranked priorities, final selection may be based upon secondary rankings such as  reduction in risk of variation from Contractor due to poor scope definition.

6. Selection of the Preferred alternative

Alternative 2 (BIM Process) is considered the preferred alternative on results above.

Whilst the BIM model development process during tender stages is considered more complicated and costly (Attribute 1 & 2) with a heavy / early reliance upon specialized BIM management skills, BIM will greatly increase the chance of the Owners design and project objectives being satisfied through through better visualization of requirements. The Owners desire to reduce variations though poorly detailed or communication of Work scope is also more likely to be realised with a BIM process.

7. Performance Monitoring and Post evaluation of results

In order to truly evaluate the effectiveness of BIM during the tender stage, the following information would need to be established at the end of the project;

  • Quantity / Value of variations claimed due to scope omission/errors
  • Number NCR’s or rework required by contractor due to non conformance with Specification
  • Compliance with Owners tender design
  • Redesign costs and time lost due to changes
  1. What is Building information Modelling and what are its advantages and Disadvantages (Krigh Bachman) retrieved from www.quora.com
  2. The Benefits Of BIM For Structural Engineers (Venu Gopal) retrieved from www.leevenspark.com/2015/01/the-benefits-of-bim-for-structural.html
  3. 15 advantages of using BIM (Francesc Salla) retrieved from    http://blog.visualarq.com/2014/03/12/15-advantages-of-using-bim/
  4. Sullivan, William G., Wicks, Elin M. & Koelling, C. Patrick. (2014). Engineering Economy 16th edition page 600 -607, England: Pearson Education Limited.
 

W2_ABM_Follow up Tuckman Survey on SPJ offshore Construction Team

  1. Problem Definition

The Offshore Construction team for McConnell Dowell / SYS Joint venture (SPJ) have been actively working together for the past 8-9 months. Further challenges are now expected with larger and more complex work fronts commencing. We now wish to determine the following;

  1. The groups maturity to further understand its ability to deal with continued adversity and;
  2. leadership skills and styles which the group may benefit from as it enters this next phase of the project.

2. Development of feasible alternatives

As commented in the Blog for Week 1, according to Professor Bruce Tuckman in 1970, there are 4 stages for teamwork development :

  1. Forming
  2. Storming
  3. Norming
  4. Performing

Depending on the groups maturity levels, available alternatives with respect to continued management style may include;

  • Retain a high level of daily interaction to remain relevant to the team
  • Closely follow performance of the team and make decisions for the group to follow, providing specific daily targets and instructions.
  • Provide more general targets and milestones to the team allowing members to develop their own interim targets and pathways.
  • Delegate and oversee group activity from from a high level perspective and act as a guide and motivator as director and instructor.

3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative
As per Week 1 exercise with Emerald team the assessment of the SPJ offshore construction team will be performed through the administration of 32 question survey containing statements about teamwork. Each team Member scores each of the 32 questions using a scale of 1-5 (Almost never to Almost always) to indicate how often their team displays each indicated behavior.

In this survey however, respondents were requested to not record their names or identifies on answer sheets and submit together in 1 lot to assist with the retention of anonymity and therefore the integrity of results.

4. Selection Criteria

Survey results of SPJ Offshore Construction team are as follows;

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

From the above results, the team is now clearly operating in the Performing phase which is characterized by the following traits;

In this final stage the team becomes more strategically aware, they know what they are doing and why.  With a shared vision they are able to stand on their own feet with little interference or direction from the leader.  The focus becomes one of over-achieving goals, challenging and continuously improving their own working practices.  Disagreements are handled internally with the team members looking after each other as well as the task.

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

On reflection of these results, team members are now operating with minimal interference from senior management and more autonomy. Processes and procedures are developed for new work scopes however established work fronts are now observed to “run themselves”

The teams maturity levels (Performing)and current operation style being observed is therefore supported by the results above and can be considered appropriate for a group which has been established for the past 9 months and who have worked through a degree of adversity together.

With respect to actions by its leader and their task to keep the group motivated and focused on the remaining activities. The following actions are to be taken from the alternatives;

  • Provide more general targets and milestones to the team allowing members to develop their own interim targets and pathways.
  • Delegate and oversee group activity from from a high level perspective and act as a guide and motivator as director and instructor.

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

Additionally, further actions to be taken to those nominated above, the leader may consider the following;

  • Keep close to the team to assist the team in the event of personnel or organisational change.
  • Encourage Team members to deepen their knowledge and skills, including working to continuously improving team development.
  • Accomplishments in team process or progress are celebrated.

References

  1. Judith Stein -Using the stages of Team Development                       Retrieved from  (hhttp://hrweb.mit.edu/learning-development/learning-topics/teams/articles/stages-development)
  2. Scoring the The Tuckman Team Maturity Questionnaire Electronically. retrieved from (http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Documents/Electronic_Tuckman.pdf)
  3. Alan Chapman (2013) – Tuckman forming, storming performing model –  Retrieved from (http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm)
  4. Stage of team development – the Tuckman Model                           Retrieved from (http://tomorrowsconsultant.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Stage-of-team-devel)
 

W1-ABM-Tuckman Assessment

1. Problem Definition

Following the completion of the initial 5 day face to face programme and the formation of a working team called Emerald 2017, an assessment of the  group will be performed using the Bruce Tuckman 4 stage model in order to understand what stage the group is currently operating in.

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

2. Identify the Feasible Alternative

The Group will be assessed for the following stages of teamwork development;

  1. Forming
  2. Storming
  3. Norming
  4. Performing

Each Phase is characterized by the following;

3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative
The assessment of the team will be performed through the administration of 32 question survey containing statements about teamwork. Each team Member scores each of the 32 questions using a scale of 1-5 (Almost never to Almost always) to indicate how often their team displays each indicated behavior.

4. Selection Criteria

Following the completion of survey questions from the Emerald 2017 group members and the classification of responses in accordance with Tuckman scoring model, the results are summarized within table 1.0 below;


5. 
Analysis and Comparison of the AlternativeFrom the above results, the current maturity of the group is regarded as PERFORMING based on a highest average score of 27.4.

In analysing the above results, the score may be influenced by the factors such as the sharing of scores with other team members, reducing willingness to provide negative feedback or low scores or overstatement of positive scores.

With these factors in mind and on the basis that the group is only 1 week old and is yet to face major challenges with respect to member interaction, work load and leadership, a more appropriate ranking of the group is that of the “Forming” stage (Rank 2).

Furthermore, the lowest score received for the group was for the Stage of “storming”. This is considered appropriate.

A statistical analysis of the teams survey results was not performed as it was not considered relevant to assessing the groups current development or stage of maturity.

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Whilst the survey has produced a result indicating that the group currently operates within the “PERFORMING” stage, based on reasoning stated under section 5 above, the Preferred alternative is considered to be the FORMING stage. 

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

It is recommended that the survey be repeated at week 10 and Week 20. It is also recommended that the survey be undertaken in a manner where respondents score are not disclosed to other team members to ensure that all scores truly reflect the opinions of the respondents.

References

  1. Team technology – Leadership using the Tuckman Model.                        Retrieved from  (http://http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/tuckman.htmlf)
  2. Scoring the The Tuckman Team Maturity Questionnaire Electronically. retrieved from (http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Documents/Electronic_Tuckman.pdf)
  3. Alan Chapman (2013) – Tuckman forming, storming performing model –  Retrieved from (http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm)
 

WELCOME EMERALD GROUP 2017…

This weekly Blog showcases the work and effort of team members from the Emerald Group – 2017 who are working towards AACE and Guild of Project Control certifications.

The Blog acts as a public platform allowing its authors and members to achieve the following;

  1. Measure their return on investment (RoTi) by demonstrating and applying their understanding of concepts, tools, techniques and methodologies learned from course study materials to real problems in their day to day working environment.
  2. Assist group members in their preparation for essay questions contained within the EVP, PSP,CEP and DRMP certification exams
  3. Enhance the ability and competency of group members to structure and present technical arguments in support of a “solution” or “idea” to a problem within the work place or even home
  4. Provide blog authors with the opportunity to showcase their works and efforts to a wider and public audience, thereby enhancing their public profile.