Integrated Concurrent Engineering - Stanford Universitykunz/Chalmers/W2ICEOverview.pdf · Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) Center for Integrated Facility Engineering Integrated
Post on 20-Jul-2018
223 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Integrated Concurrent Engineering
John Kunz
Big idea: Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) is a social method, helped by technology, to create and evaluate multi-discipline, multi-stakeholder VDC models extremely rapidly.
RateBaseline
($K) ChangeYear-1
(K$)Revenue 100,000 2% 102,000Cost of contracted work 85% 85,000 -2.0% 84,660Cost of self-performed work 10% 10,000 2.0% 12,240Gross Margin 5,000 5,100Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,040IT investment 70Amortized costs of IT/yr 33% 23Net income 3,000 3,037Time to payback (years) 1.9Net Income change (%) 1.2
*05-07-01
Finish
Final Program Confirmation with
Pharmacology
Final Program confirmation with LAR
KPFF
SRG Lab Task 37 Task 44 Project Mgt AEI Core Task 41 Task26 H Block Crew Task 23SRG / AEI Technical
AEI Core andSRG Lab HDCCO Costing SRG
Technical KPFFAEI Core and Tech HDCCO Core Code Rev
Consultant Solvent TarterH Block Crew
& TechSRG
LandscapeTele DataDesign Code Rev
Furniture
37. *Reprogram B#15 Shafts
34. *Finalize Pharmacology
Program
33. *Finalize LAR Program
32. *Finalize Bio-Organic Chemistry Program
35. *Finalize Protein Chemistry
Program 20. *Determine Scope of package D including vivarium
changes
45. *Complete all Basement/LAR Drawings
41. *Reprogram bookends B#13 and
B#15
36. *Analyze structural impacts
12. *Complete UG utiliites
25. *Do Central Plant design changes
19. *Determine vertical utilities
22. *Complete catwalk drawings
52. Finalize landscape
26. *Finalize B#13 and B#15
Exiting/architecural H occupancy concept
*Lab and vivarium
Programming Complete
27. *Finalize B#13, 15 Shaft Size &
MEP Room Locations
31.* AEI & SRG
Determine Design $/Time
Impact of
23. *Reprogram B#13 and B#15
Exterior Architecture
Bookend Programming
Accepted by Genentech
Notice to proceed on structural changes
Architect program/MEP
oncepts Established By Design
Team
29. *Document lab plan
1. *Redesign main MEP distribution systems
SRG Management AEI Management
Genentech PM
SRG Lab Plan
Ken Mouchka
Task 27Task 38
Organization
5. *Finalize lab & Equipment plans
Task 29
Task 28
30. *Approve Change to Design Contract
21. *Prepare Plan Views for Review of Concept w/City
39. *Finalize MEP distribution and
section
Task4 Task22
Review 80% documents
48. *Develop exiting plan
49. Develop reflected ceiling
plan
Turnover reflected
ceiling plan to AEI
Detailed Design 80 PC Complete
3. Complete Tele Data Design
42. *Develop Execution Strategy
44. *Complete B#14 Officing
Planning
18. *Detailed Lab Program
Documentation
47. *Develop lab DD plan
28. *Determine segregation of lab
and tech space
G accept lab equipment matrix
*Package B structural modifications (CCD3A)
13. *Code Consultants Review Concept for final
city Presentation
14. *HDCCO update Estimate of cost of Program
Review skin changes w/db team
Lab Planning Program Meetings with Pharmacology
Lab planning Program Meeting with Protein Chemistry
BMS Controls Meetings (Weekly)
Lab Planning Program meeting with Bio Organic 80% Drawing Review
Tele Data Coordination MeetingsSteel Detailing Meetings
Genentech 80% Detailed Design Review
Final Program Confirmation with Officing
Weekly Coordination
MeetingLab Planning Program Meetings with Directors
50. Designate size, location of 13 MEP, teledata rooms
54. KPFF design stairs for 13/1438. *SRG
Reprogram 13/14 interface, exiting,
stairs
43. *Changes in Steel Forwarded to Steel
Detailers
46. *RA Furnture Concept Complete
MEP, Teledata room design
*Design Budget & Schedule for Changes
Approved
*Notice to proceed with detailed design
24. *Complete B13,4 H block occupancy
requirements on MEP systems
17. *Risick reprogram solvent
distribution and waste
Issue 80% MEP CDs
(20) Incorporate 80% MEP review
comments
(19) Genentech review 80% drawings
53. Incorporate comments, complete
Architectural detail
2. Initial redesign MEP branch lateral distribution
G accept 13/14
Interface
*City Accept exiting
*Package C skin
modifications
55. KPFF design stairs for 15/14
40. *SRG Reprogram 15/14 interface, exiting,
stairs
B13 MEP HVAC, conduit, piping mains
completed
MEP 80% Review comments incorporated
Package D and UG addendum issued:
underground utilities, vivarium catwalk
10. Draft Alternate means
15. Jeff reprogram HMIS
(3) *AEI design MEP HVAC, Conduit & piping mains B13
16. *HDCCO Determine Schedule Impact
City Approval of Alternate Means
for Program
8. Review Alternate Means w/impact on LEL
and LFFH
(21-4) Finalize MEP Details, update specs and p&ID's
(8) *Revise MEP loads, MEP
Equipment schedules finalized
(13,15,16) MEP specs, P&ID's, control sequences
Work Process
Meetings
(6) Coord B13 MEP floor section
4. complete all Interior Architcture
*Cal OSHA Recommend Determination of LFFH
51. Designate size, location of 14 MEP, teledata rooms G accept
15/14 Interface
*Accept project scope:budget by Genentech
*City Approval of H Concept
*Exterior Programming
Accepted by Genentech
*Turnover lab and vivarium DD plan
to AEI
Object AttributeRequirement Relationship Requirement
Predicted value
Observed value -2 -1 0 1 2
ProductProduct Scope Product Scope . Building Spaces includes -Project GoalsProject Goal . Capacity (people) >= 60 - ?oProject Goal . Cost (M$) = 70 - ?o
BuildingGoal . Net Energy Use (K-BTU/ft2) <= 250 - ?o
BuildingGoal . Quality conformance (%) >= 12 - ?o
Organization Scope Organization Scope . Actors includes - -Organization GoalsOrganization Goal . Predicted . Cost (K$) - <= - ?o
OrganizationGoal . Observed . Response Latency (days) 3 <= - ?o
OrganizationGoal . Predicted . Peak Backlog (days) 3 <= - ?o
OrganizationGoal . Predicted . rework (FTE-days) - <= - ?o
ProcessProcess GoalsProcess Goal . Peak Quality Risk < 0.50 - -
ProcessGoal . Schedule Growth (months) < - ?o
Process Goal . Completion Date <= 1/1/09 - ?oProcess Task . Action: Object Process Task . Design: Actor Actor that designsProcess Task . Predict: Actor Actor that predicts
Process Task . Assess: Actor Actor that assessesProcess Task . Build: Actor Actor that builds
Function Product Behavior
Organization
Qualitative Threshhold values
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
2
Overview
Session Goals
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE):
Develop, show and explain the product, organization, process, POP and 4D models as well as analyses of each and recommendations for management based on the design exercise – collaboratively and quickly
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
3
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) Background
Given • Objective = Rapid, effective design
“extreme collaboration” (~1 week) • Excellent VDC software • Collocated team • iRoom • Good generic VDC project definition
templates • SD (DD) phase focus
Performance change
XC
Goo
dtra
ditio
nal
Latency(secs)
0200004000060000
Latency (secs)
Duration (days)
XC
Good traditional
050
100150200250300
Duration
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
4
The big ideas of ICE
• The Big Ideas: • Exceptional performance, e.g., Team-X at NASA-JPL • It works because it achieves exceptionally short
information latency and short task durations, reliably. • Multiple factors enable ICE to work.
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
5
Goals of this design session: Project Definition (v)
Define: • What each of the teams expects to deliver • What they expect from the other team members • How can individuals coordinate their respective and collective scopes • How team members know how work is progressing • How team members know when (pre)construction is completed • What work resources and methods can be used for (pre)construction
work • What resources and work methods will be used for the (pre)construction
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
6
Goals of this design session: Project Definition (v)
Define: • What each of the teams expects to deliver (plans, commitments) • What they expect from the other team members (commitments) • How can individuals coordinate their respective and collective scopes
(coordination commitments) • How team members know how work is progressing (risks; measurable
process performance metrics) • How team members know when (pre)construction is completed
(measurable outcomes) • What work resources and methods can be used for (pre)construction
work (controllable factors) • What resources and work methods will be used for the (pre)construction
(commitments)
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
7
Goals of this design session: Project Definition (v)
For the product, organization and process, project definition clarifies and aligns: • Functional objectives – what project stakeholders want –
– Specific deliverables, e.g., spaces, systems – Conforming and highly reliable safety, schedule, quality and cost
• Scope – “forms” you create -- periodic design and construction deliverables, including: designs of the – Product (~weekly or daily) – to update objectives, designed scope,
predicted and measured behaviors – Organization – groups of people to do tasks that work on the design – Process (daily work) – tasks to design and manage, procure, fabricate,
deliver, construct and inspect • Behaviors – what you predict and what you did – predict and measure
performance of designed scope – With respect to specific stakeholder objectives – Using methods of VDC, Integrated Project Delivery, Lean and Sustainable
development
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Potential value of VDC
• Better project or corporate performance (measurably) – Suggests need for ~weekly
performance data: specify >=2 metrics each for P, O, P
• Better clarity of decision processes, for – Decision-makers – Execution team – Executive team
• Better plans and clear commitments for working team
• ↓Rework; ↓Work effort ↑Profitability, ↑Business
VDC methods: • Models: Product (3/4D),
organization (commitments), process (plan, schedule)
• Collaboration methods: ICE • Analyses (model-based): Clash,
Structure, QTO, cost, energy, …
• Metrics: Outcome, process, controllable factors
(c) 2013
8
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Product – Organization – Process (POP) Model format:
(c) 2013
9
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
10
Process of Project Definition
• Build VDC project definition templates as a stakeholder team • Set functions (objectives) of Product, Organization, Process • Design form or scope of Product, Organization, Process • Identify project behaviors and define methods to predict,
assess and observe them
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
11
Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) vs. Building Information Modeling (BIM)
VDC BIM
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
12
Integrated Concurrent Engineering at JPL (ICE)
Properties • Collocated Organization (Closed Knowledge Network) • Excellent Technical Infrastructure • Formal Objective Metrics • Informal Process and Culture
Photo thanks to JPL
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
13
Integrated Concurrent Engineering at CIFE
Integrated Collaborative Engineering (ICE) at CIFE • Collocated Organization (Closed Knowledge Network) • Excellent Technical Infrastructure • Formal Objective Metrics • Informal Process and Culture
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
14
Without Integrated Concurrent Engineering
Source: @ammunition group: http://twitpic.com/5xs1vy
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
15
Observations
ICE at NASA-JPL characteristics • Organization: Multiple stations (~18) • Process: careful design • Technology:
– Multiple shared display screens – Shared database (Icemaker)
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
16
Coordination Latency is the fundamental performance metric for knowledge work
• Response latency = Time from a designer posing a question to receipt of a useful answer
• Decision latency = Time from receiving useful information to making a decision with it
• Good engineering practice for both: 2 days – weeks typical
• Why it is important: non value-adding time • Measurable ICE Objective for latency: minutes,
reliably – For and as assessed by all intended stakeholders
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
17
Simple analysis of Latency
Traditional • Project requires 100 “queries” per
engineer @ Latency = 2 days (good!)
100 modeling, analysis, meeting “tasks” @ task durations < 2 days
Project duration ~ 200 calendar days (typical)
Latency paces schedule (typical) Not direct work
ICE (Team-X) • Project requires 100 “queries” per
engineer @ Latency = 1 minute
100 modeling, analysis, sidebar “tasks” @ task durations ~8 minutes
Project duration ~ 2 calendar days (Team-X)
Direct work (modeling + analysis + documentation) paces schedule (Team-X), Not coordination latency
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
18
ICE requires latency management
• Latency extends schedules – Interdependent tasks have incessant information requests – Requests have response delays (latency) – Latency adds no value, measures collaborative waste
• Integrated Concurrent Engineering dramatically cuts time and latency
– Reduces latency from days to minutes – Direct work tasks must run in minutes – Enables radically decreased project duration – Researchers, practitioners report improved cost, quality – Requires high reliability (> 99%) latency: one major latency
source jeopardizes project success – New organizational form
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
How ICE (Team-X) works
Manages: 1. Duration of direct work tasks
– Model, describe, predict, explain, evaluate, generate alternatives, decide
– Requires highly skilled engineers with excellent tools that they know well and culture that provides good enough answers
2. Coordination Latency – Time for a designer to obtain
usable information – Requires many enabling factors
Supports both: 1. Associative (divergent) thinking
– Many options, intuitive, including unique idea
Fluency (lots of options), Flexibility (different kinds), Original (at least one)
2. Analytical (convergent) thinking data, prediction, analysis, evaluation and recommendations that believably support decision-making – Actionable
(c) 2013
19
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Ling on “Taking for grantedness” [1]
• We take some things for granted – Calendar, clocks (and time and time zones), cell phones – We make (generally similar) assumptions about what we will
(and expect others to do) to use things that we take for granted
• Ling’s steps toward “taking for grantedness” 1. Diffusion 2. Legitimization 3. Social ecology 4. Reciprocal expectations
[1] Taking for grantedness: The Embedding of Mobil Communication Into Society, Rich Ling, MIT Press, 2013
(c) 2011
20
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Implications of “taking ICE for granted”
• Implications of “taking ICE for granted” 1. Diffusion – Professional development to bring ICE,
BIM and metrics methods to the team 2. Legitimization
• Leadership to bring the method into practice • Early successes to create demand to use it
3. Social ecology – fit ICE into the organization and the project development process: e.g., number of concurrent project assignments
4. Reciprocal expectations of participants
(c) 2011
21
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Implications of “taking ICE for granted”
4. Reciprocal expectations of participants: • Safety: participants feel that it is “ok” to participate
actively • Session attendance: invitations, attendance • Session homework: participant level of preparation for
sessions • Support for in-session availability of and change of BIMs,
prediction tools, metrics and collaboration technologies • Latency during and outside of sessions • Decision stickiness • Rules of engagement and conflict management in ICE
sessions
(c) 2011
22
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Model LOD
All functionsBIM element
function - primaryType of BIM content BIM elements
BIM Element Level of detail (LOD) - AIA
Level of detail LOD) -
comments
Due date of next BIM
version
BIM content conforms to
spec [Yes/No]Comment
Other
A+
A
B
Organization
Process
Product
BIM (VDC project model) Content Specification
Methods to enable a project to “take ICE for granted”
• Templates – ICE pre-plan
– Operations agreement
– BIM (VDC project model) Content
Specification
– Deliverables
– Task and coordination commitments
(c) 2011
23
Problems Outcomes Resources
Problems for session to focus on
Desired outcomes
Intended Participants
Participant discipline
Pre-session assignments
Member of pre-plan
team (yes/no)
Role in ICE session
Member of post-
session wrapup
team (yes/no)
Agenda itemsOutcome intent
met? (Yes/Partial/No)
Meeting space,
technologies, models, tools
ICE pre-plan
Participants Agenda
Item Agreement Agreement detailsFrequency: Time: Agenda (Attached?):Format: (Physical + Video Conference, ..)Location:Frequency: Time: Agenda (Attached?):Format: Location: Decision process: Conflict resolution process: Veto possibility: Commitments: Measurable process objectives:
Resources Needed
ICE Sessions
Meetings
Decision Making ProcessGround Rules
Operations Agreement
Planned deliverables
Responsible team, individuals
Receiving team Due dateDue date
met (yes/no)?
Expected LOD Comments
Deliverables
Task Priority Short descriptionResponsible
team
Budget (FTE-
hours)
Coordination dependent
team(s)
Approval team
Due dateDone on-
timeComments/ model
image(s)
Commitments - example
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Methods to enable a project to “take ICE for granted”
• Target values and performance metrics: – Intended stakeholder timely and meaningful engagement in ICE
sessions – Latency: response and decision – Quality, cost, schedule, safety process and outcome
performance – Individual and team preparation for sessions
(c) 2011
24
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
25
Use ICE for Target value design for cost, schedule, energy, …
• Generate and evaluate many design options w/ICE
• Select target cost • Rapid design
method: PIDO http://network.modefrontier.eu/documentation/pido.html
Value
Cost Low High
Assessed project value and predicted cost of many options
+ ∆
- ∆
Linear value curve
Wide design option space
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
26
Use ICE for Target value design for cost, schedule, energy, …
• Generate and evaluate many design options w/ICE
• Select target cost Value
Cost Low High
Assessed project value and predicted cost of many options
+ ∆
- ∆
Non-Linear value curve
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
27
Use ICE for Target value design for cost, schedule, energy, …
• Generate and evaluate many design options w/ICE
• Select target schedule Value
Schedule Low High
Assessed project value and predicted schedule of many options
+ ∆
- ∆
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Use ICE for multi-discipline target value design:
• When a change affects two measures of project success,
–Choose when upside value exceeds downside risk
–E.g., - ∆ cost risk < + ∆ upside schedule
compression value
(c) 2013 28
Value “I can sell this”
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
29
ICE Methods
Normal Stations • Owner • Product: model functions,
scope, behaviors • Organization: model
functions, scope, behaviors • Process: model functions,
scope, behaviors • Integrated project: POP
model • Facilitator (session leader) • Project manager
Process
• All stations simultaneously develop model inputs
• Coordinate continuously • Assess and evaluate first
design option
• Deliver project: – Definition – Objective assessment – Option evaluation
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
30
Steps to perform ICE sessions …
• Pre-planning: a few days immediately prior to ICE sessions – Invite a very small set of project principals (2-4) – Do project definition and identify VDC project definition
templates at Level-B with ~10 each of P, O, P elements • Determine the design space to explore in ICE session:
– Invite relevant stakeholders to ICE session – Select modeling and analysis tools and methods
• Assure that facility and intended tools are available
• ICE session: ~3 sessions within one week – Frequent process checks (every ~20 minutes)
• Post-session: a few days immediately following ICE sessions to create formal deliverables
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
31
When to hold ICE sessions …
• For each major project phase – at least early (concept and schematic), detailed (DD,
CD) and to plan construction • Collaborating with your other stakeholders • Hold a set of about 3 ICE sessions • Build and analyze a project model for the next
phase in enough detail to identify objectives, scope and predicted performance believably
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
32
Why to hold an ICE session
• Do project definition rapidly and believably – Define functional objectives, scope, behaviors of Project, i.e.,
• Product, Organization, Process • Clearly identify tasks and deliverables for next period (week or month)
– Focus: product element and system(s) served – Who: responsible group, individuals – What: tasks to perform – When: according to broadly reviewed and accepted schedule – How: methods and resources to be used by responsible team(s)
to coordinate, do work and verify work – Context: specific
• risks and uncertainties to address based on broad project review
• coordination tasks to assure success given risks
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
33
To plan a set of ICE sessions
• Enable effective use of ICE methods – Professional development of potential team members - create
culture, methods, incentives – Implement enabling tools: P, O, P modeling and analysis
applications, display technology, shared database • Plan each set of ICE sessions: Identify
– Objectives and intended deliverables: models, analyses, reports, recommendations, …
– Number of sessions and calendar schedule: typically 2-4 over ~ 1 week
– Intended participants, tasks for each session – Effort and time budgets for use of ICE sessions – Process performance metrics and methods: measured and
assessed quality, schedule, cost
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
34
ICE deliverables …
• Functions: statement of project objectives for P, O, P • Scope:
– Design of multiple P, O, P options in large design space – P, O, P models for use by next phase
• Behaviors: predicted P, O, P performance • Evaluation of acceptability of options given objectives • Risk assessment and mitigation strategy • Recommendation for new P, O, P design option(s) • Proposed product design, team, schedule and
responsibilities for next phase
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
ICE vs. traditional meetings in construction
Issue ICE Traditional meetings
Outcome re issue at hand
Resolution Tracking of status
Agenda management Focused on clear, shared agenda
Tangents, pursuit of personal agendas
Description of problem and context
Shared and clear Individual perceptions
Number of options considered
Multiple; consider what-ifs
Focused on agenda of one individual
Supporting technologies
Interactive visual models and analyses
Paper and appeal to understanding of others
35
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
36
ICE Enabling Factors
(Committed) Organization
(Dynamic) Process (Visual)
Technology Stakeholders Present: (Closed knowledge network)
Processes clear: (low equivocality)
Excellent discipline-specific modeling, visualization tools
Focused design staff: 100% committed in sessions
Processes distinct: High structure independence
Rich communications media
Flat organization structure
Resolve problems in small self-formed groups (Pooled communications)
Integrated database
Egalitarian culture
High goal congruence
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Staff survey: Example of how senior management helps
1. I feel that I can challenge people at any level in my organization without fear. 2. I feel I can ask for and receive the resources (time, budget, equipment) I need to solve problems. 3. My Manager/Supervisor makes it easy to speak up when problems arise. 4. My Manager /Supervisor listens to bad news, yet still asks for unrealistic targets. 5. When we present bad news, our Manager/Supervisor repeatedly asks for more information focused on showing that the problem is not as bad as it seems. 6. My Manager/Supervisor encourages us to ask for help outside our organization or the chain of command (e.g., outside our project or work group or next level up) if we need it. 7. I am aware of what to do when a Manager/Supervisor doesn’t respond appropriately to bad news and it needs to be escalated to a higher level. 8. My team uses metrics and processes effectively (e.g., trend program, standard metrics, etc.) to analyze, surface & solve problems. 9. In my organization, we live by our corporate values 10. The formal metrics in my organization often do not convey an accurate picture of performance.
(c) 2013
37
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
38
Organization Enabling factor: Stakeholders Present: (Closed knowledge network)
• Objective: knowledge and authority always present • Meaning: Requisite knowledge, procedures, options,
and authority are immediately available in the room (almost always)
• Risk factors: sidebars; unanswered sidebars • Team-X Methods:
– Heavy reliance on collaborative design sessions – Designer collocation during sessions – Careful participants selection and training – Pre-plan to identify needed participants
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
39
Organization Enabling factor: Design staff focus
• Objective: 100% available during meetings • Meaning: Design session participants focus
exclusively on project work during design sessions • Risk factors: Designers have other responsibilities
during design sessions, so team waits for expertise • Team-X Methods:
– Management support of focus – Short sessions enable managers to free valued staff
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
40
Organization Enabling factor: Hierarchy structure
• Objective: Flat • Meaning: Minimal required decision-making structure
and overhead • Risk factors: Soliciting management approval
challenges short latency • Team-X Methods:
– No managers – Culture of autonomy and respect – One facilitator (session leader)
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
41
Organization Enabling factor: Egalitarian culture
• Objective: Egalitarian • Meaning: Positions assume empowered decision-
making and low management overhead • Risk factors: Soliciting management approval
challenges short latency • Team-X Methods:
– Culture of autonomy and respect – Careful recruitment – Decisions and decision processes highly visible to all
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
42
Organization Enabling factor: Goal Congruence
• Objective: Highly congruent • Meaning: participants know and aspire to same goals
and methods • Risk factors: positions debate priorities or methods • Team-X Methods:
– Discuss goals and methods at session start – Facilitator (session leader) attention – Culture of congruence – Analysis and decisions very visible to all
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
43
Process Enabling factor: Processes clear: (low equivocality)
• Objective: design, coordination and construction processes clear • Meaning: all participants understand and accept procedures,
goals and objectives – Implies that method applies only to well-understood processes
• Risk factors: positions ask for and wait for facilitator (session leader) decisions
• Team-X Methods: • Use only for well-understood processes
– Pre-plan for process clarity – Culture of autonomy – Analysis and decisions very visible to all – Excellent process facilitator (session leader)
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
44
Process Enabling factor: Processes distinct: (High structure independence)
• Objective: design processes clearly separated • Meaning: Design tasks are distinct, positions all
understand their responsibilities and can proceed with minimal management oversight
• Risk factors: positions solicit or wait for facilitator (session leader) decisions
• Team-X Methods: – Use only for projects that allow independence – Pre-plan for independence – Staff selection and training – Culture of autonomy – Analysis and decisions very visible to all
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
45
Process Enabling factor: Resolve problems in small self-formed groups (Pooled communications)
• Objective: Pooled communications • Meaning: Participants resolve problems in small self-
formed groups • Risk factors: Formal or inflexible coordination
requirements • Team-X Methods:
– Collocation – Shared project (POP) model – Shared projection screens – Sidebar culture
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
46
Technology Enabling factor: Modeling, Visualization Tools
• Objective: Excellent • Meaning: Discipline-specific tools allow all positions to
do direct work very fast • Risk factors: Manual design activities or poor tools
bottleneck schedule; Other designers fail to understand a model
• Team-X Methods: – Modeling, visualization, analysis and decision support tools
enable all critical path tasks – High team experience – Shared project (POP) model
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
47
Technology Enabling factor: Communications Media
• Objective: Rich • Meaning: Shared and personal, visual, multi-
disciplinary, showing functional requirements, design choices and predicted behaviors
• Risk factors: Slow process to describe models, explain rationale, evaluate choices, make predictions, create alternatives
• Team-X Methods: – Mature modeling and analysis tools – Personal workstations – Shared “iRoom” displays
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
48
Technology Enabling factor: Shared Project Database
• Objective: Integrated • Meaning: Discipline-specific models all access and
store shared data easily • Risk factors: data reentry, missing shared data • Team-X Methods:
– Develop good shared generic (POP) model ontology – Applications have developed uniform semantics for shared
data – Designated position assures consistency
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Assessment of status of ICE Enabling Factors
(c) 2013
49
(Committed) Organization
(Dynamic) Process (Visual) Technology
Stakeholders Present: Processes clear: (low equivocality):
Excellent discipline-specific modeling, visualization tools:
Focused design staff: 100% committed in sessions:
Processes distinct: Rich communications media:
Flat organization structure:
Resolve problems in small self-formed groups:
Integrated database:
Egalitarian culture
High goal congruence:
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
50
ICE Enabling factors: so what?
• Necessity: excellent ICE performance requires all factors to work well
• Sufficiency: No one factor suffices • Early evidence (Stanford classes) of necessity,
sufficiency of these factors (from observations or theoretically-founded simulation)
• Process and team experience are crucial, so understanding factors may help understand how to change Team-X to – Make specific improvements – Replicate Team-X (in less than 10 years it to create it)
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
51
Goals of ICE sessions session: Project Definition (v)
Define: • What each of the teams expects to deliver (plans, commitments) • What they expect from the other team members (commitments) • How can individuals coordinate their respective and collective scopes
(coordination commitments) • How team members know how work is progressing (risks; measurable
process performance metrics) • How team members know when (pre)construction is completed
(measurable outcomes) • What work resources and methods can be used for (pre)construction
work (controllable factors) • What resources and work methods will be used for the (pre)construction
(commitments)
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Deliverable commitment template - example
(c) 2013
52
Planned deliverable
Deliverable formatResponsible team,
individualsReceiving team Due date
Due date met (y/n)?
Expected LOD Comments
BIM spec for current step
BIM content template (Excel)
Core team BIM architect Mm/dd Top-10 $ elements
BIM reviewBIM content template (Excel)
Review team x 50 PM Mm/dd [1:5] each teamNo team priority yet
Schedule of assets to manage
Excel format BIM author FM manager Mm/dd all rooms > 10 ft2
Next step plan development
Core team PM Mm/ddTask size 2-5 FTE-weeks
Sr Mgt approve next step
email Sr Management PM Mm/dd Yes/no/ buts Decision required
Deliverables Example
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Coordination commitment template
Planned coordination
activity
Responsible individuals
Due date
Due date met
(y/n)?
Expected LOD
Comments
(c) 2013
53
Commitment conformance
Time
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Controllable factors template - example
(c) 2013
54
Factor Type Factor
Range of options: choice impacts BIM specifications
Constraints Action(s) for this weekAction Taken?
(Yes, Partial, No)
Product Detail of water line in 3DFeatures of size from 1 mm to > 1m
None important Model features size > 20 mm
Product Location of in-water equipmentAdjust both equipment location, water width/depth profile
Size of equipmentmodel equipment located in water this week
Organization Number of BIM authors <1 – many FTEsAdjust author count up and down slowly
Budget BIM author work
Organization Number of BIM reviewers Author team – hundreds Size of BIM review facility Budget BIM reviewer work
Process Construction duration 6 months to 2 yearsNeed to plan prefabrication early to shorten construction period
Get owner preference
Process Size of weekly pre-con tasksOne task for whole team/week to all tasks with > 0.5 FTE-day
Availability of staff to plan, manage schedule
Build short-interval production plan and schedule at feasible LOD
Process Tool used for BIM reviewBIM authoring, BIM review, Navisworks
Training of review team to understand content
Provide and train in best available tool supported within company
Process Invitation list next meetingdo not do it to invite core team + all who might help
Need to do it at least 3 days before meeting
Invite estimator, others x 10 by COB today
ProcessDevelop agenda, purpose, intended outcomes of next meeting
Agenda items: 1 + 2-5 subheadings; purpose set by current project status; outcomes none to schedule and commitment clarity of assigned tasks x 5-10
meeting date; attendee availabilitycreate agenda; coordinate with AV; test technology
Controllable Factors
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Metrics Implementation template - example
(c) 2013
55
C: Controllable; P: Process; O: Outcome
Prediction
Name Comment Target value Tolerance: +-∆ How to use in
management Source of data Type [P, O]
Stakeholders who saw data
last week
Collection frequency Objective Weight
Predicted/ measured value (how
you are doing)
Assesed value
M Quality: POE satisfaction wrt program (%) 100 5
Guide commissioning, next job
Client assessment O Owner only Turnover time
+ 6-24 months 40 98 3
E Cost conformance to plan (item actual - predicted/predicted) 100 5 Plan next job Client
assessment O PM only Turnover time 25 1
T Schedule conformance to plan (%) 100 10 Plan next job Client assessment O All on team Turnover time 35 95 3
R Predicted Cost conformance to plan (item actual - predicted/predicted) 100 5 Attention
managementPeriodic project progress report P Subteam only Weekly 15 99 3
I Production schedule conformance to plan (%) 90 10 Attention
managementPeriodic project progress report P Owner only Weekly 10 75 2
CAssessed Quality conformance to plan (% of items with rating >=4 on scale 1:5)
100 10 Attention management
Periodic project progress report P Subteam only Weekly 15 95 3
S Stakeholder participation that is timely and meaningful (%) 90 10
Adjust plan by stakeholder review and assessments
Periodic project stakeholder
surveyP All on team Weekly 10 90 3
EvaluationMetrics
Intent
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Assessed status template - example
(c) 2013
56
Comment: Graph shows assessed status of the predicted/measured performance of each metric defined in Metrics template
Managerial significance of this assessed metrics status graph: Most metrics have very good predicted performance for this design version. Team should focus attention on high risk areas of cost and production schedule conformance.
Home
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Quality: POE satisfaction wrtprogram (%)
Cost conformance to plan (itemactual - predicted/predicted)
Schedule conformance to plan(%)
Predicted Cost conformance toplan (item actual -
predicted/predicted)
Production scheduleconformance to plan (%)
Assessed Quality conformanceto plan (% of items with rating
>=4 on scale 1:5)Stakeholder participation that is
timely and meaningful (%)
Latency: % responses received<= 1 day
Field RFIs (count)
Fraction of prefab assembliesthat take <=1 day to install (%)
Personal preparation: Faction ofparticipants that say they
understood modeled designcontent and rationale (%)
Team preparation: Fraction ofparticipants saying that other
team members came preparedto meeting (%)
Assesed value - taken from Metrics Example
Assesed value
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Risk template - example
(c) 2013
57
Time
Identified risk
Potential impact of risk
($, time, effort)
Severity: Low,
Medium, High
Parties affected by
risk
Individuals responsible for
mitigating design, approval
Earliest analysis/ last responsible
moment dates
Mitigation activity
Resolution date met (Yes/No)?
Comments
BIM ready partner teams available
Dramatic schedule High
Client Early partner relationship team
Day-1/ end of concept phase
BIM training for partner staff
Best to set expectat-ions early
Sea level riseCosts/ curtailed operations
Medium Operations Concept design team
Day-1/ end of Concept Dikes 100-year risk
Goverment plan OK
Delay open day Medium Operations Core group Day-1/ facility
open
Engage government review early
Ongoing risk
Paint spec unclear or inappropriate
Cost: use contingency; schedule delay
LowClient Core group Day-1/ facility
open
Vet across different examples
Risks - Example
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
To read more
• Section Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) supports VDC – Pp 34-38 in VDC recommended reading – "Virtual Design and Construction: Themes, Case Studies and
Implementation Suggestions," CIFE working Paper #97, 2011.
(c) 2013
58
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
ORID: Focused Conversation and Analysis
Objective What do you recall
seeing?
Reflective Positive
What do you feel positive about?
Reflective Negative
What do you find negative?
Interpretive What sense do you
make of it?
Decisional What agreements can be made now?
(c) 2013
59
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (c) 2013
60
Overview
Session Objectives
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE):
Develop, show and explain the product, organization, process, POP and 4D models as well as analyses of each and recommendations for management based on the design exercise – collaboratively and quickly
top related