0---
Dryden Flight Research Center Critical Chain Project
Management Implementation
February, 2012
Dennis Hines
Director for Programs
1
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120004299 2020-03-14T06:19:47+00:00Z
Outline
I· The Need for Change at Dryden
• Choosing a solution and first year Results
• How did we do it, what did we change?
• Implementation Challenges
• Next steps and Conclusions
0--- 2
Dryden Work Environment
• Almost equal support of ARMD, SMD, and HEO with growth in Space Technology
• Majority of work occurs at sub-project or task level
• Work content and schedule driven from outside Dryden
• Program demand exceeds FTE center ceiling
• Highly matrixed Center organization
• Limited number of certain skills in key areas such as structures engineering and backshop support , I ~
• Multi-project environment causes resource conflict
0 --- 3
The Need For Change at Dryden
• Recent NASA audits have indicated that our workforce is stressed to keep up with project demand.
- Many individuals will work on 10 different projects in 1 pay period
• In a Dryden-wide survey, workforce identified improved project planning as the number one area to improve work/life balance
• Need to become more efficient due to a combination of program demand growth and declining budgets
0--- 4
For Our People
• Reduce stress for people
• Reduce multi-tasking
• Improve prioritization of work
• Improve sense of accomplishment
x
>20%
v ..------Relmburseableslti"J Pure ReseCJrch(5"J
Yearly Project
Commitments
.......
.......... .........
...........
Goals
...... Re/mbursl!fllJles
PfJre ReseardJ
Yearly Project
Commitment5
For Our Business
• Improve on-time performance
• Improve Time for: - Training
- R&D
Near Term Opportunities
Infrastructure Improvement
Position us for Available Opportunity
Significant productivity gains (>20%) are required to meet these goals
e 5
Determining a Solution
Dryden senior management realized that we needed to change the way we work
In July 2010, Dryden Management chose to implement CCPM methodology at the start of FY11
0--- 6
First year results
• 250/0 increase in work completed for the first 6 monthsl
• Results declined for a few months as we attacked bottlenecks and thought through mechanical changes
• First QTR FY 2012 we are back on track P hase Comple tions
~Phases A. B C}, D E ... F~
- H i . .... ,i-L. - H i ... a +25% - AL lud l
, '1f1
SOLID RESULTS! 5:J
0---
.----
echanical Changes
• Refocus
---~ACK
ON
TRACK
7
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
Results
Phase Completions (A, BC, DE, F)
3.0
2.5
2.0
L5
1 .0
--Historic --Hist+ 25% --Actu al
1st QTR 2012
Phase completions (6w Rolling Average)
--Historic --Hi, t t 25% --Actual
8
Variance to original Planned Date (BCD)
• New measure developed to drive the correct behavior
• Goals set to cut the variance in half over the next year
DFRC-AVERAGEVARIANCE TO DAYS TO FLIGHT 60
52 51 51 51
50 ...., ~
40
30 ------------------
20 ------------------
10 ------------------
o L--' ___ '--__ -'--___ -L---__ --'-__ -----'
BASELINE S ARf 11/ 9/ 11 11/ 16/ 11 11/ 30/ 11 12/7/11
0--- 9
Other Benefits of CCPM
• Increase time employees can spend on research, training, job skill improvement
• Provide a better work environment for DFRC workforce
• Improved visibility into current & projected status of Center project portfolio for management chain
• Ability to project future resource pinch points and monitor corrective actions
• Concerto software that implements CCPM provides the prioritized task list and buffer consumption charts to assist in conflict resolution
0--- 10
How did we do it?
Followed some simple rules based on CCPM concepts ...
PIPELINING • We staggered project starts to reduce WIP for management and
support and staggered the due-dates to enable stable priorities for direct resources
BUFFERING • Removed measurements based on local efficiency and schedules • Created aggressive/feasible plans with 1/3rd buffers
BUFFER MANAGEMENT List of Tasks
• Set priorities based on buffer consumption • Used buffer consumption for control
11
Due
Date
Project 2
How buffer signals drive priorities
Project Completion = 50%
Buffer Consumption = 40%
Priority Index = 0.4/0.5 = 80%
Project Completion = 33%
Buffer Consumption = 50%
Priority Index = 0.5/0.33 = 150%
Portfolio St 5
ICI%
O% ~ ________________ ~ ____________ ~ ______ ~ __ ~
0% 0% 30% 0 50% 60% 0% 80% 90% 100%
Longest Chan co~ e
13
Priorities for resources
Synchronized priorities and sense of urgency (what to do and how urgently)
Task Manager I D· ' ar ;; n \J\l il~or v I Task Mgr Filter Task Status
~==============~ P" Show rvgrs On l" r.r ~ Pnrl Fr ... i""
&§ Saleh ' rinln,j
~ EI p)~ to Exes
Related Links Ta!;k Le 'lel P-iJriti es E.'{ Task: f'.lar Flow T' l: lld Projects
Shirt Date
I Ft:!Ol 5;0
5111074 ~
Ip'~53 73 6
Ip·~57 ' 36
1R.~57 ~
I CR220 12
I.AII Pr,jects v I T"s k Ro le . ,oJ ~ol Sb rt~d ~::::;:;::;:;::= ___ ~-;:::;::=-_____ -==:l r rv all ~ ger P [r PfO Jres., 19/ 71200 ;) + D<lY 30 r Pa-tcpant r ~Jmple:ed
r. All R"'N
T<lsk Desc
Re:;c, I '/ ~ J ,rera ll De~ i g ll ~e \' i e ', A:tien IE
IteIll S ~ 1/15/1009 ~ F na i.e . : Retc r DV r alll ics ~l e d, a l1icc l lE
~ al13 lv£i£ ~ 7/15/"lOO 9
F na i 'E I sol2ha se l\.ssEn-blv Pro E IE ~ r>'od=ls D
7/15 / 200,)
F na ile ~la i l1 3r, d ~Je Ltral _<ad Field IE [i-A" y
A~,e l1l [) I 'l Des ign ~ Il C LE',out 0 :ahn ... 7/15 / 2(01) IN:; vi F na i,e ~l a i n 3nd f.JeLtral ead FiEld IE IN:; vi Assel1lb l'( Design ~ n c Levout ~
712(/ 20(9
Cefi 1e [nstru me , ta: ion and Tl: rminal IE IN:; vi ElQg rd 0 712(/20 (9
:r
:r
:r
ti
:!
r:
" Adv m,od S. It
'\f MJ3rc,d F II""
Ci. S.arth in ~.&ul~
ISd
19d
15d
13d
ISd
12d
Data is Notional e
M i l ~ s;c ne Re ~ort
r II ... 'Jeec r,larag= rn =nt IE OK r ~e" i e wIA.o ~ rova l
II ... ',Jee c Extra R.esJurce IE Read y r ' F'roE 2'
r II ±I IE M
r II :±l IE
r II :±l IE
7.'15n 009 96
~
IE P,.;;ady 7! 1512009 5 ~
~
IE Fin al 7,' 15{2009 La ya ... 37 rtfll IE I<~ddy
rtfll
IE lfilI
IE ~
14
Priorities for management
Resource managers look to see where tasks are stuck and their urgency
Task tlallage r I.A I T,,;k ~12r2ge rs 8 Tilsk Mg r Filter - Til s k Color
W :;hOVl Mgrs Onl" F R:d F Yellow
I_A I Projects Y Task Ro le . 1-. ====----;::::=:-------=>~ r Gr ee n r Otl er ,- r.:::;:-- r Ver a ge r ==F;;:;:;;J.rli;,;;-F;u:;;;:;:z.:~---------__, 1 7/~ 5i~ 00 9 + DilYSl3C Escalatio ll Filters
(' =>a rl i ~ ipar t P" E ~ca l sted .:c ~
Pruject§
start Date
I • R20 . 569 Cbnduct 0 I' e ra I C·e.si g n Rt .vie'" Paul Yo un J IP o : c
I R201 570 R~s; 'Ie Overall De~i g l1 Re, ielV A:: i ~l lt~ 11 '. ] D-Ka"en " Iwn IP 3d
I C~"- ' ,~~ ;;,. 65 '.I ~ ~ t TEst ~_e q u i r~ 'l1e n tg 13 Lou is Kim flS 2d
I C:;202 "i To p Co I Insta ll ation Lo·ui; Kim IP ~5d ..
l e-e-~ 1i7 EE and TE SUD<lSS;' l rsta lat iol D-Amy J Oll ~O· l IP 7d •
I R251 Develop Stato r RelE 5iE Schedule Loui , Kim IP 3d •
c202 570 R= SJ ve, C veri'l ll Des g n Re." i e IV J\:;:i J 1 ltns Loui.s Kim IP 5d '
SAlO,':' ...2 Firl.<l liz ;, 5 Rotor D'I'n<llll ics ~l - =h a 1 c;;; 1 ;;; r a l \f~i< ~ D'-Ka'e n Vl l ,on IP 9d •
e Data is Notional
7/15/2)J~ ~
7/15(2)J~ ~
~
7I15mn ilt!J
71lS/2m Ifl!t
7/15/2)J~ ~
7/ 1S/ 2)J3 irtlJ
7/ 15/2)JOl ilt!J ~I
15
What did we change?
BEFORE AFTER
WORKLOAD WORKLOAD • Projects accepted with no regard for • Stagger project starts based on capacity
capacity or overloads
• All projects are worked at the same time
• No mechanism to say no or yes to work
PRIORITIES • Projects fight for resources and the
Squeaky wheel gets priority
RESOURCE ALLOCATION • Resources spread thin over many
projects
SOLVING ISSUES
• Limit work in execution ... so we can do more
• Test to see if we can accept the work
PRIORITIES • Synchronize resource needs across all
projects in work based on buffer signal
RESOURCE ALLOCATION • Resources focused on fewer tasks at a
time, allocated to real need
SOLVING ISSUES • Issues tackled as they move into crisis • Issues raised and identified early and
solved quickly to avoid delays mode, managers overloaded with issues
16
Proj
ect R
esou
rces
& R
equi
rem
ents
Project Lifecycle Process Integration of the lifecycle process of preparing and conducting ARMD research
Pre-Phase A: Advocacy /
Concept Studies MeR
7120 •
Phase A: Concept Development & Requirements Definition
SRR • Phase B:
Preliminary Design
PDR • Phase c:
Detailed Design & Fabrication
CDR • Phase D:
System Integration & Test, Ground Tests
AFSRB
Phase E: Flight Op/ System Op
TB FF • • Phase F:
Closeout / Disposal
Planning Implementation Operation & Closeout
Phase A Network Phase BCD Network
Project Management Board (PMB)
PMB
Phase EF Network
17
Implementation Challenges
• Development of project networks that are simple, execution oriented, and reflect how work should be accomplished
• Changing the way resources are assigned to projects
• Determining how much WIP can be undertaken
• Training personnel to update their tasks daily
• Breaking the habit of multi-tasking
• Concentrating resources on the high priority task
• Customer awareness & buy-in of CCPM
0--- 18
Next Steps
• Improve project network modeling techniques
• Improve early project planning
• Focus on how to continue good resource concentration and flexibility
• Develop interfaces for external reporting
• Integrated CCPM into budget planning process
0--- 19
Conclusions
• Changing the way we do our work is critical for our future
• Results indicate that we can increase our project throughput with same resources
• Implementing CCPM has increased the need for horizontal integration across organization
• Cultural change is a challenge
• CCPM concepts may have broader applicability to other Dryden areas
0--- 20
END
0--- 21
Buffer signal used to synchronize and control
Project 1
Project 2
Project Completion = 50%
Buffer Consumption = 40%
Project Completion = 33%
Buffer Consumption = 50%
Project 2 is eating buffer at a faster rate = Higher priority
22