Month: August 2017

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 asses 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.

2. Development of feasible alternatives

As commented in the blog for Week 2, 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
3. Leasing UT Crawler as inspection tools

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

3. Possible Solution / Alternative

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

4. Selection of Criteria

The Acceptance criteria is the option with lowest total net worth.

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternatives

Table 1: Summary result of investing, renting, and leasing (Operating Lease Scenario) data

The scenario for leasing is “Operating Lease”, with lease rental payment is 75% of investment price.

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

Table 3: Book Value at the end of life time, using Straight Line Depreciation

Calculation summary :

Table 4 : Present Worth for Purchasing

Table 5 : Present Worth for Renting

Table 6 : Present Worth for Leasing

Table 6 : Calculation Net Worth Purchase, With i : 7% (Bank Indonesia Rate – 2016)

6. Selection and Preferred Alternatives

Table 6 show that total cost of leasing UT Crawler is the lowest. For long term inspection with numerous number of tank, leasing UT Crawler is the most efficient way.

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

It is recommended to review feasible leasing alternatives, and conduct performance equipment monitoring. For example Net lease scenario, where the payment not include maintenance and insurance, or Capital Lease scenario, where we can buy the asset at the end of lease term. Regard, the maintenance cost is very low and almost need no maintenance, also we can calibrate UT Crawler by our self.

 

References

1. Sullivan, William G., Wicks, Elin M. & Koelling, C. Patrick. (2014). Engineering Economy 16th edition page 71-73, page 213 – 215, and page 332 – 337, England: Pearson Education Limited.
2. Module 10-3 Managing Change The Owner’s Perspective (2015).
   Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective
3. Module 06-5 – Acquiring Equipment for The Project (2016)
   Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/acquiring-equipment-for-the-project
4. Press Release (2016)
   Retrieved from http://www.bi.go.id/en/ruang-media/siaran-pers/Pages/sp_181416.aspx

1. Problem Evaluation

Kediri Fuel Terminal was closed on 2009 because it is inefficient. Now this area is distributed from Surabaya, Malang and Madiun Fuel Terminal. Best on future demand estimation, fuel volume of this area will be raising and we need more storage of new product. Those are the reasons why we want to reopen Kediri Fuel Terminal again.

So we need to evaluate Operating cost of Kediri Fuel Terminal quotation from our subsidiary is IDR 130/Liter. Is the quotation appropriate? If it is not, how much is operating cost of Kediri Fuel Terminal?

2. Development of feasible alternatives

There are three options approach in evaluate Operating cost of Kediri Fuel Terminal :

• Accept the quotation, as price as IDR 130/liter (Alternative A).
• Using cost approach estimation. Historically in 2009, Kediri Fuel Terminal cost/liter was about IDR 108 (Alternative B).
• Using comparison with other Fuel Terminal cost that operated by ourselves. The cost/liter is IDR 157 (Alternative C).

3. Development the outcome for each alternative

In this evaluation I am using Benefit – Cost ratio method in Evaluating all alternative. This method is very useful to select alternative in economical approach with a simple way, because it compare positive (cash in) and negative (cash out) cash flow of each alternatives.

4. Selection of criteria

The Rule of thumb in Benefit – Cost ratio method is Alternative will be feasible if B-C ratio greater than one. So in this evaluation we will eliminate alternative with B-C Ratio less than one, because it not economically feasible (their cash out higher than their cash in).

5. Analysis and comparison of the alternative

This calculation using data as below:

• discount rate 10.5% (as a Pertamina Hurdle Rate of Investment)
• Investment Cost (I) = IDR 19,854,221,656
• Benefit (B) per/year = IDR 100,937,362,800
• Operation & Maintenance (O&M) /year :
  1. Alternative A = IDR 54,674,404,850
  2. Alternative B = IDR 45,421,813,260
  3. Alternative C = IDR 66,029,858,165
• There is no market value because we use it until the end of the life cycle (20 years)

Conventional B-C ratio with PW:

Modified B-C ratio with PW:

B-C ratio each alternatives:

Table 1. B-C Ratio Result

All the alternatives are shows B-C Ratio’s calculation greater than one. So all alternative is economically acceptable.

6. Alternative selection

Base on B-C Ratio Alternative B is preferred to be used because it gives the highest value than other but it use historical data of year 2009. As we know 8 years is a long time and everything has changed, so it would be better if we use Alternative A. This alternative is a second highest value and also more efficient than operating cost that operated by ourselves.

7. Performance monitoring & Post Evaluation Result

Different alternatives only affect the amount of the B-C ratio, no effect on project tolerability. Extra analysis needs to be done to present input in order to acquire a better conclusion.

References

1. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., & Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 10 – Evaluating Project with the Benefit – Cost Ratio Method., pp.467-491. Prentice Hall.

2. Planning Planet. (2017). Benefit Cost Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective
3. Mind Tools. (2017). Cost-Benefit Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_08.htm

1. Problem Definition

From my previous blog posting on Week-2, we using Compensatory Model for select the best choice for Tanjung Uban Electricity Supply. Dr. PDG suggest to use other technic to select a decision by using Non-Compensatory Model and compare which one is better and fit.

2. Develop the Feasible Alternative

There are 3 alternatives in the supply of electricity at oil and gas storage facilities in Tanjung Uban, among others :

1. Using direct electricity produced by PLN (State Own Electricity Company).
2. Using gas turbine with feed from gas flare utilization.
3. Using power generator with diesel fuel

Multiattribute Decision Making with Non-Compensatory Model will be made to choose the electricity supply option in Tanjung Uban. 

3. Development of The Outcome for Alternative

Comparative analysis is conducted for each proposed alternative to see the impact of cost, reliability, efficiency, and environment.

Below on Tabel-1 is the comparison for alternative :

Tabel-1 Data Alternative

to summary information on table-1 and make a paired comparisons all attributes must be inspected, it shown and describe on tabel-2

Tabel-2 Checking Pairwise Comparisons of each attibuttes

After that we do satisficing for checking dominance among alternatives, it shown on tabel-3.

Tabel-3 Check for Dominance Among Alternatives

4. Selection Criteria

Alternative with highest dimensionless value will be selected

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.

Next step is analyzing by orinal ranking of attibutes, it shown on tabel-4

Tabel-4 Ordinal Ranking of Attributes

By using Lexicography technic we can define which selection is the best and fit, it shown on Tabel-5.

Tabel-5 Application of Lexicography

Regarding to Tabel-5 it can explain alternative B (Using Gas Turbine for Electricity Generation) can be choose as the best option as Cost basis. if alternative A can reduce cost/tariff electricity per kWh it can be choosed because Reliability as basis.

Compare with my previous blog posting by using Compensatory Model it same result with Non-Compensatory Model because Alternative B or using Gas Turbine selected for the best and fit decision.

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

By using 2 technic Compensatory and Non-Compensatory Model it’s shown Alternative B or Using Gas Turbine is prefered to choose. But Compensatory Model more prefered to used, because it calculated with quantitative technic, it’s different with Non-compensatory using qualitative. People with high level management more comfortable to make a decission by using numbers because qualitative result it’s hard to explain and near to be subjective.

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

For sharp the result, people with high experience on Electricity Generation must be involve to make more independece opinion put in this decission proses step by step.

References:

1. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., &Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 14 – Decision Making Considering Multiattributes., pp.559-608.
2. W11_AL_Platform Decommissioning(2014, May). Retrieved from : https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/w11_al_platform-decommissioning/#more-1340
3. W3_HI_Decision Making Considering MultiAttributes (2015, March). Retrived from : https://garudaaace2015.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/w3_hi_decision-making-considering-multi-attributes/
4. MODULE 10-3 – MANAGING CHANGE – THE OWNER’S PEREPCTIVE(2015, December). Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective

 

1. Problem Definition

My Company in initiation stage to fulfill gas needs of x area. There are 3 (three) alternative gas supply scheme, which can be analyzed to meet the company objective. Board of Director has been develop 7 (seven) mandatory parameter to select the best gas supply scheme. Hence a method is needed to accommodate all mandatory parameter, Multi-Attribute Decision Making method would be applied.

 

2. Identify the Possible Alternative

3 (three) alternative gas supply facility to fulfill gas needed of x area, as follow:

1. Offshore regasification facility
2. Gas pipeline
3. Landbase regasification facility

Because of the selected facility must be accommodating all the parameter that have been determined by Board of Director, then non-compensatory approach shall be chosen to select the best alternative in view of the full dimensionality.

 

3. Development of The Outcome for Alternative

Non-compensatory approach consists of 4 different techniques:

1. Dominance
2. Satisficing
3. Disjunctive Reasoning
4. Lexicography

This technique is use to select the best alternative by comparing an attribute –by-attribute.

Table 1. Parameter Objective

Using non-compensatory approach, all of 3 (three) alternative gas supply will be ranked to get the most optimal alternative.

 

4. Selection Criteria

• Dominance

Table 2. Alternative Dominance

From table (2) above, Offshore Regasification Facility dominates for all categories, with the only contenders would be Pipeline A. While, Landbase Regasification Facility cannot compete in all an attributes with offshore Regasification and pipeline A.

• Satisficing

Table 3. Alternative Satisficing

The minimum and maximum acceptable value for alternative has been described in table (3) above. Maximum acceptable value was adjusted by the company target, with baseline MARR 10% and project on-stream Q2 2019.

This step to weed out any outliers, and also serves to look at only the alternative are marginally acceptable, eliminating the ability to look extremes which may prove to be acceptable trade off.

• Disjunctive Reasoning

Table 4. Attribute Disjunctive

The attribute ranking base on importance scale are Social Risk > Permit Duration > Capex > Location > Delay Potential > Project Duration > Optimize Existing Asset.

This step is serves to determine attribute ranked in order of importance, by means of compare between each possible attribute combination.

• Lexicography

Table 5. Alternative Lexicography

Using the ordinal ranking of attribute, in terms of social risk (1^st rank) the best alternative is Offshore Regasification Facility, with another alternative which is even close would be Pipeline A and follow by Landbase Regasification Facility as the last alternative rank.

 

5. Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

Base on the attribute, comparison for all alternatives would be defined, as follow:

Table 6. Alternative Comparison

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

The best alternative was described in the analysis above, offshore regasification facility would be the best supply gas scheme to be proposed to Board of Director.

This alternative has considered all parameter objective required by BoD, while the only one cons should be mitigated by the planning team.

 

7. Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation of Result

The cons condition shall be monitor and manage on the planning and execute stage to reduce the risk. Planning and project team must be identifying the activity which will give impact to offshore regasification facility construction.

Reference:

1. Planning Planet (2017). Multi Attribute Decision Making.

Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective

2. Sullivan, G. W. (2014). Engineering Economy 16^th Chapter 14 – Decision Making Considering Multiattributes, pp. 603-608.
3. Dhanu, H. U. (2017). 1_UDS_Choosing a New Fuel Terminal Location in Dumai Using Additive Weighting Technique in Multi-Attribute Decision Making.

Retrieved from http://emeraldaace2017.com/2017/08/09/w2-1_uds_choosing-a-new-fuel-terminal-location-in-dumai-using-additive-weighting-technique-in-multi-attribute-decision-making/

 

1. Problem Definition.

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

2. Identify the Feasible Alternative.

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

Table 1 Gas Meter Data

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

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

3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative.

3.1.    Non-compensatory model.

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

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

Table 2 Evaluation of Dominance

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

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

Table 3 Satisficing Model Evaluation

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

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

Table 4 Attributes Ranking

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

Table 5 Lexicography Evaluation

 3.2.     Compensatory model.

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

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

Table 6 Non-dimensional scaling

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

Table 7 Additive weighting evaluation

Note: Column Relative Rank is taken from Table 4.

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

4. Selection of Criteria.

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

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.

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

Table 8 Ranking of gas meter

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

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

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

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

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

References:

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

 

 

 

 

Problem Definition

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

Develop the Feasible Alternative

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

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

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

Develop of the Outcome for Alternative

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

Selection Criteria

Characteristics of the WBS:

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

Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

OmniClass consists of 15 hierarchical tables, each of which represents a different facet of construction information or entries on it can be combined with entries on other tables to classify more complex subjects^[2].

Fig 1. Inter-related OmniClass^[2]

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

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

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

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

We can compare both OmniClass and NORSOK as follow:

Fig 4. Comparison OmniClass vs NORSOK

Selection of the Preferred Alternatives

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

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

Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation Result

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

 

References:

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

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. However some tools must be performed to monitor forecast and balance the distribution of workload, it was manloading chart, resource histogram, and s-curve.

 

2. Identify the Possible Alternative

To monitor and manage the workload we can use manpower loading chart, resource histogram, and s-curve.

The proposed of these tools is to define forecast workload base on activity, resources, duration and target date. Therefore before the project being late, it will help the Project Manager to maintain team members load.

 

3. Development of The Outcome for Alternative

The activity and plan for each member will be defined in man power loading chart, as follow:

Table 1. Emerald AACE 2017 Manpower loading chart

While the resource histogram showing required resource quantity in a week, as follow:

Picture 1. Emerald AACE 2017 Resource Histogram

Since the schedule was set, the s-curve showed cumulative man hours spend, as follow:

Picture 2. Emerald AACE 2017 S-curve

 

4. Selection Criteria

Refer to Table.1 above (Manpower loading chart), it showing each member required 8 hours per week (P50) to finish all the tasks. Using the manpower loading chart, will give the information about each member peak and low time consumed.

Table 2. Emerald AACE 2017 Manpower loading chart (balance)

The resource loaded must be provide in the histogram showing required resource quantities and time consumed each week, then when compared to peak resource availability gives us a clear indication how much resource flexibility we have.

Picture 3. Emerald AACE 2017 Resource Histogram (balance)

While the s-curve will be using for monitoring the progress of the project to be tracked.

Picture 4. Emerald AACE 2017 S-curve

 

5. Analysis & Comparison of Alternative

Since the advantage was mentioned above, so the disadvantage of those tools was:

• Manpower loading chart : no clear information of resource flexibility
• Resource histogram : no clear information of activity
• S-curve : no clear information of peak and low period

 

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

The objective was balance the workload distribution, so the important information that should be shown was peak and low period.

With this information, we can balance the resource from peak period to low period.

The best tools for Project Manager to manage and balance the team member was resource histogram.

 

7. Performance Monitoring and The Post Evaluation of Result

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

Reference:

1. Planning Planet (2017). Allocating Resources.

Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/allocating-resources

2. Planning Planet (2017). Introduction To Managing Planning & Scheduling.

Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/introduction-to-managing-planning-and-scheduling

3. Planning Planet (2017). Assigning Resources To All Activities.

Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/assigning-resources-to-all-activities

4. Fahmi, A. (2013). W2_AFS_Workloading Histogram.

Retrieved from https://simatupangaace2014.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/w2_afs_-workloading-histogram/#more-423

5. Likhite, Rashmi. (2015). Resource Load Chart.

Retrieved from https://celoxis.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DOC11/Resource+Load+Chart

 

 

 

 

1. Problem Evaluation

Location of the new Fuel Terminal is one critical factor that determines operational success. Especially in build new fuel terminal, we must consider at least two aspects such as land aspect and sea aspect. The fact is very hard to find the location that has both aspects perfectly like example building project of a New Fuel Terminal in Dumai. But if we get the best one it has already bought or developed, so we have to choose the optimum location.

2. Development of feasible alternatives

In the beginning there are three alternative locations in Dumai for build new Fuel Terminal, among others:

1. Patra Dok Dumai
2. Beside Refinery
3. Beside Existing Terminal

Figure 1. Alternative of a New Fuel Terminal Location in Dumai

Our purpose is build a sea feed Terminal so the third alternative which don’t have coastline can be eliminated. So The Team will choose two locations to build new Fuel Terminal to meet minimum operational criteria.

3. Development the outcome for each alternative

Choosing the optimum location is decision making strategy. There are some theories in Multi-Attribute Decision Making that can help us to find the optimum (Table 1). In this case we use “Additive Weighting Technique” because base on our team discussion each criteria have different relative importance. With this technique we can find the best (Optimum) location based on calculation between weighted / rank and scoring of the criteria.

Table 1. Multi-Attribute Decision Making Technique

The find the best location by using Additive Weighting Technique, First we have to do is select the criteria of land and sea aspect. Second, we make a weighting of the criteria. Weighting criteria may come from proportional rank of the criteria or expert judgment. Third, we give a number (Likert scale 1-3) in every criteria and time it with the weighting of every criteria. So we can choose the location with the highest score.

Table 2. Additive Weighting Technique Step

4. Selection of criteria

Summary result of the weighting criteria each alternative as follow :

Table 3. Weighting Land Aspect Criteria

Table 4. Weighting Sea Aspect Criteria

Base on sum result of Table 3 and Table 4, Patra Dok Dumai location gets the highest score.

5. Analysis and comparison of the alternative

Additive weighting calculation show Patra Dok Dumai location gets higher score in sea aspect criteria but lower score in land aspect criteria. It indicate this location is not the best but the optimum alternative that we have.

6. Alternative selection

Choose the optimum not the best alternative is not a bad decision. It could be happen as long as they pass minimum requirement of operational success and we already prepare all of the mitigation of the risk.

7. Performance monitoring & Post Evaluation Result

Even we already have the chosen alternative base on operational aspect also we have to evaluate the alternative base on economic aspect. Maybe in economic view our alternative not feasible to run so must go back to beginning and do this iteration until we get feasible alternative both on operational and economic aspect.

8. References
   1. Planning Planet. (2017). Multi-Attribute Decision Making. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective Figures 8-14
   2. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., &Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 14 – Decision Making Considering Multiattributes., pp.559-608.
   3. Norris, G. A., & Marshall, H. E. (1995). Multiattribute decision analysis method for evaluating buildings and building systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

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)