1. Problem Definition

Formed in face to face classroom (24-28 July 2017), Emerald AACE 2017 team will face the distance learning mode since then. In this phase, the daily work and a lot of tasks must be executed at the same time. To achieve optimal productivity and minimize stress, the workload must be distributed effectively. Susanne Madsen defines 6 tips to manage a demanding workload:

2. Prioritize important over urgent
3. Delegate
4. Plan collaboratively
5. Use the right tool

These tips can be applied for control the workload of team project and officer also. However some tools must be performed to monitor forecast and balance the distribution of workload, one of them is workload histogram.

1. Identify the Possible Alternative

Workloading histogram is some tools to define forecast workload base on activity, resources and target date. The histogram can showed team member peak and low period. Therefore before the project being late, it could help the Project Manager to take action to sufficient the resources needed and maintain workload team members.

1. Development of The Outcome for Alternative

First of all, the activity and target must be defined.

Emerald AACE 2017 project plan will be used for basic calculation of workloading histogram, as follow:

Table 1. Emerald AACE 2017 Activity

Then schedule and time allocation based on each activity would be determined, as follow:

Table 2. Emerald AACE 2017 Schedule

1. Selection Criteria

The Workloading histogram based on Emerald AACE 2017 team schedule, as follow:

1. Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

To identify additional work hour for each member, this histogram only consider 6 (six) tasks that should be completed during after office hour (exclude classroom session).

Refer to Pic.1 above, it showed each member required 10 hours per week to finish all the tasks on time. In order to fulfill all the works, so our baseline hour (average) per person as follows:

Table 3. Time Frame per Week

With the workload histogram showed, as follow:

1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Refer to pic.2 above, it shows that :

• The peak time will be at W23
• To reduce the workload (W23), increase the productivity on another week (W14-W17), reducing scope or add man power.
• Blog, Cheat sheet, and problem solving will be executed earlier to decreased the peak time
1. Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation of Result

Workloading histogram shall be monitor in weekly basis, it will help Project Manager to maintain and monitor team member workload. In parallel, implementing this tools will help team member to manage the workload effectively, increase the productivity and raise the team opportunities to achieve goal together.

Reference:

W2_MFO_Benchmarking Study of Estimating Process

1. Problem Definition

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

1. Identify the Feasible Alternative

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

Figure 1. GAO Cost Estimating Process

1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

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

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

1. Selection Criteria

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

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

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

1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

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

Table 3. Summary of the gap obtained

1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

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

1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

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

Reference:

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

W2_OAN_Investing vs Renting Studies

1. Problem Definition

Reliability of equipment in oil and gas industry has been main concern in our company, storage tank to be specific. As main equipment it needs special attention, since we are taking care hydrocarbon product, which is highly flammable. Our goals are to assess reliability of storage tank such as corrosion rate and remaining plate thickness. To achieve our goals, it is important to determine the most economical method to asses reliability or conduct inspection of storage tank.

1. Development of feasible alternatives

To asses corrosion rate and remaining plate thickness alternatives :

1. Investing an Ultrasonic Thickness (UT) Crawler as inspection tools
2. Hire third party specialize on storage tank inspection

It is important to choose which most efficient way to conduct inspection, especially with numerous number of storage tank.

1. Possible Solution / Alternative

Calculation of investment, maintenance cost, operating cost and rent cost based on inquiry from UT Crawler Vendor and Third Party specialize in this field.

1. Selection of Criteria

Summary result of investing and renting data :

Table 1: Investing vs Renting from Third Party

As shown on the table 1, if we rent from 3rd party company we dont have to deal with maintenance cost, while if we purchase we must consider maintenance cost, operating cost beside investment cost.

1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternatives

Total number of inspection based on our work plan and KPI. In 1 month we must performed at least 2 storage tank inspection, therefore in 1 year we have target at least 24 storage tank to be inspected. We assume that our equipment have 5 years life expectancy. This will be our baseline for calculation.

Table 2: Useful life and Total Number of Inspection in 1 year

Calculation summary :

Table 3 : Summary total cost inspection 24 storage tank/year for 5 years inspection

1. Selection and Preferred Alternatives

Table 3 show that total cost of invest UT Crawler is lower thant rent from 3rd party. The biggest difference in operational cost, this cost reduction more than balance the extra \$53.383 in investment. In short run, one year or less, we can consider outsourced inspection activity. But for this case, long term inspection with numerous number of tank, investment on UT crawler will be economically feasible.

1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

Periodic monitoring and maintenance is needed to conduct, for company to make sure equipment in the best condition. Review shall be conducted to reveal uncertainty parameter such as overhead and cost of run.

References

1. Sullivan, William G., Wicks, Elin M. & Koelling, C. Patrick. (2014). Engineering Economy 16th edition page 71-73, England: Pearson Education Limited.
2. W2_AL_Sleeping Field Development (2013, March).
3. W02.1_SJP_Bamboo Scaffolding ((2017, June)

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:

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

W1_A_Tuckman Assessment

After face to face learning phase interact with Dr. Paul, now we on Distance Learning Mode/DLM, it is a part of develop self learning and catch up our objective pass the AACE Certification on first attempts and Generate Favourable Return on Training Investment (RoTI). At this moment we implement Tuckman Model for assessment our team look like. Tuckman Assessment is performed since it can be used to identify the team position jointly as well as define leadership style.

1. Problem Definition

When create new team, we facing a problem because our team member from different working environment and job desk and even different years of working experience. To facing this situation, we need to mapping our current stage when creating groups or team.

1. Identify The Possible Alternative

Regarding to Dr. Bruce Tuckman research, he develop model for forming team, it consist of 4 Phase :

• Phase-1 : Forming

In this phase groups has been created, actually all member team work individually, and team member facing unclear purpose and objective, and less of involvement to achieve project goals.

• Phase-2 : Stroming

On second phase conflict between team member arise, it trigger by all rule of game on team. Team member works but they tend to defend their own opinion, the simple things to identify this phase are the onset of anger, felling of annoyance.

• Phase-3 : Norming

On Third phase, formed a close relationship between team member and set a rule to find the right away of communications. Sign of this phase is team member review and explanation of the team objective, hear each team opinion.

• Phase-4 : Performing

On Fourth phase all team member able to work together, all member have togetherness, confidence, creativity, initiative and goals to success.

Combine with Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model it shown every stage of Tuckman related to Leadership stage on team. It shown on figure-1.

Figure-1 Tuckman VS Hersey&Blanchard

3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

Accommodate all different in team member, a Delphi technique use to know phase of team stage.

4. Selection Criteria

A survey who developed by Barkema and Moran, 2013 use to analyze the team phase. The questioner consist of 32 question and fill by team member. The data will be use to determine a stage of Tuckman Model in our model on this time. The highest score represent out team Tuckman phase.

5. Analysis and Comparison of Alternative

Regarding to survey process on all team member, on the table-1 the result of survey shown and table-2 describe rank of team stage based on Pvalue 90.

Tabel-1 Team Survey Result

Tabel-2 Performing Phase on Distribution Selection

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Refer to Table-2 it shown groups stage on Performing phase stage. Matching with figure-1 Tuckman vs Hersey leadership for Performing matching with Delegating. Its meant leader monitor progress and give a trusty to team member achieve goals

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

Routine measurement of organizational conditions shall be  do to know organization stage, because the organization stage possibly change. And the task of a leader to make sure everything is running on what should be.

REFERENCE :

thecoachingtoolscompany.com. (2014). Tuckman’s Team & Group Development Model: What You Need To Know To Get Your New Group or Team Performing Beautifully! Retrieved from https://www.thecoachingtoolscompany.com/get-your-team-performing-beautifully-with-this-powerful-group-development-model/

Tmandrianto. (2014). W1.2_TMA_Tuckman Assessment Retrived from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/w1-2_tma_tuckman-assessment/

W1_Dhanu_Tuckman Analysis Assessment

1. Problem Evaluation

There are seven people ,with different head, gender, background, and idea,  was collected in 5 days class training (F2F Phase) from 24 until 28 July 2017. They are called Emerald AACE 2017 Team. They have two goals after this six month preparation course, one is get at least one certification and second is implement what they get in their work life. To rich that goal they have a lot of task that package like a project in next 26 weeks. From their differentiation come many view, idea, step, way in finishing the project. The biggest one is their first blog posting report assignment about Leadership style.

1. Development of Feasible Alternatives

To fine appropriate leadership style there are some theory has been published, but the best one is Tuckman’s model. This model have five stages of team development and behavior that are Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. This model also explains how 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.

Figure 1. Team Development and Behavior Stage

1. Development the outcome for each alternative

With Tuckman’s model we can determine where the stage the team is. First we have to distribute questioners with 32 questions to all the team members. After that we use Delphi technique with P75 to analysis the data.

1. Selection of criteria

Summary result of the survey data using Delphi technique with P75 as follow:

Table 1. Emerald AACE 2017 Team Survey Result

Table 2. Emerald AACE 2017 Team P75 Result with Delphi Technique

Base on Table 2, first rank is performing so Emerald AACE 2017 Team is on Performing Stage.

1. Analysis and comparison of the alternative

The result of P75 Delphi Technique calculation show there are very little different (less then 1 value) between first second and third rank, its indicate the team members still try to get the role and the form of the Team. In another word they are still in Storming stage.

1. Alternative selection

Storming is one stage a head of the team cycle and not a bad result. Differentiation among team members doesn’t make them broken or stop them to rich the goals. Leadership style in storming stage is coaching and team building.

1. Performance monitoring & Post Evaluation Result

Step back and help team members take responsibility for progress towards the goal is strongly recommended for Leader action. Periodically meeting and doing some activity together will make team still in right way rich the goal.

1. References
2. (2017). Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing – Understanding the Stages of Team Formation. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm

W1_AI_Tuckman Analysis Assigment

1. Problem Definition

Formed in face to face classroom (24-28 July 2017), Emerald AACE 2017 team is a new team joined by people with different backgrounds, therefore the challenge is the diverse perspective of each member. This team has 2 objectives which are (1) pass AACE certification together and (2) generate return on training investment (RoTI). In order to meet those objectives, Tuckman Assessment is performed since it can be used to identify the team phase as well as define leadership style.

1. Identify the Possible Alternative

Bruce Tuckman publish The Forming Storming Norming Performing model in 1965. This model explains team development phase so we can define which leadership style should be applied.

Picture 1. Tuckman Model

The leadership approaches by Hersey and Blanchard :

1. Telling : the leader tell each member what to do and how they would to do it
2. Selling : team member still directed by the leader
3. Participating : the leader tries to build relationship, really become part of the team
4. Delegating : the leader pass most of the responsibilities

Picture 2. Tuckman VS Hersey and Blanchard Model

It is important to know the team phase and leadership style should be applied, with the right leadership style it help the team to increase productivity.

1. Development of The Outcome for Alternative

The Emerald team can be in forming, storming, norming and performing phase. Furthermore each team member will give individual judgment by using Tuckman Team Maturity Questionnaire and follow by PERT Calculation P75 for analyzed.

1. Selection Criteria

Table 1. Questionnaire Result

Table 2. PERT P75 Result

From table 2 above, it shows the highest rank is Performing Phase.

1. Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

Based on table 2, the scores for all phase are similar with some variance. This means there is no clear perspective and the team needs to be directed by the leader, its indicate team development phase of Emerald Team is Storming Phase.

1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Instead of Performing Phase, the Storming Phase is more appropriate.

The leadership best approach for storming phase is Selling. There is two way communications, but the leader should lead the team how the team plays.

1. Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation of Result

In order to develop and improve team productivity, improvement of the leadership is the key to enhance team cooperation and comprehension. As feedback, monitoring process should be performed in periodically.

Reference:

1. Rowley, J. (2012). Time Management – Formulas relating to PERT Analysis. Retrieved from

https://4squareviews.com/2012/09/24/time-management-formulas-relating-to-pert-analysis/

W1_MFO_Tuckman Analysis Assignment

1. Problem Definition

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

1. Identify the Feasible Alternative

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

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

Figure 1. Tuckman’s Method

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

1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

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

1. Selection Criteria

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

Table 1. Donald Clark Team Survey Result

Table 2. P75 Result with Delphi Technique

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

1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

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

1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

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

1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

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

Reference:

3. Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing – Understanding the Stages of Team Formation. Retrieved from (http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm)

W1_nunug_Tuckman Analysis Assessment

1. Problem Definition

Emerald Team 2017 has been formed during five days class, consist people from different culture, background and experience. Now, we enter long distance learning as the second stage to achieve our main goals ; Pass AACE certification on first attempt and generate Return on Training Investment (RoTI).  To achieve project goal, it is important to establish strategy of leadership to keep Team solid and to achieve main goal efficiently.

2. Development of feasible alternatives

According Professor Bruce Tuckman in 1970, there are 4 stages for teamwork development :

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

Those five stages seem to be sequence that Team must be passed to build cohesive team. From Forming stages, where Team members must deal with interpersonal issues, to Performing stages, where team members already comfortable with each other and group normed have been accepted.

3. Possible Solution / Alternative

Survey was conducted for  each team member by filling 32 question. Using Tuckman’s model we can understand and identify what stage of team work Emerald Team is operating in. The group can be either in Forming phase, Storming Phase, Norming Phase or Performing Phase. Delphi technique with P70 used to analysis the data.

4. Selection of Criteria

Summary result of the survey data using Delphi technique with P70 as follow :

Tabel 1: Team Survey Result

Tabel 2: P70 Result with Delphi Technique

As shown on the table 2, the team position is in Performing Stage.

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternatives

As shown on the table 2, Final result is in Performing Stage. The reason behind this stage because most of the member come from same Company, they already have same code of conduct, working environment and working ethic. Another reason structural issues have been settled by making project charter.

6. Selection and Preferred Alternatives

Table 2 show that the Team has the highest score at Performing Stage. In this stage, Team is performing at high level, and the matching leadership style for this stage is Delegating. Leader will able to focus more of energy on leadership activities and less on supervisory.

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

Periodic monitoring and survey is needed to conduct, for the leader to monitor team performance and check the team member perception change over time.

References

1. Team Work Theory : Stage of Group Development (2017, August).
2. Scoring the Tuckman Team Maturity Questionnaire Electonically (2013, August).
3. W1_APE_Tuckman Analysis Assignment (2013, September).

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