Transcript
ISE515 Engineering Project Management
Gayatri Vilas NilangekarChangda Ren
Yanli TangHuijian Tian
Xue Yang
Siege Engine Project - TrebuchetCDR-Team 3
CDR Outline
Requirementssummary
SOW,WBS,Schedule,Cost,CV,SV
EngineeringDesignLayout
RiskManagement
Performance&TestResults
LessonsLearned
Requirements Summary1. Build a model siege engine to enter the new weapons competition for William’s expedition.
2. The Siege Engine must demonstrate the ability to meet accuracy and repeatability performance goals.
3. The Siege Engine must propel a 7 gram projectile a distance of 15 feet over a 5 foot barrier located 7 feet from the model Siege Engine.
4. The Siege Engine can hit the target in successive 5 attempts.
5. Duration: from January 27, 2015 to April 30, 2015. (PDR review: February 3; CDR review: April 28;Test: April 30.)
6. Cost: for labor cost: $100 ISE/hour/person (overtime: $150 ISE/hour/person ), for purchased parts, $1 = $1000 ISE
Statement of work
• Build a model Siege Engine that meet all the requirements before April 30th . The performance is the most important element of the triple constraint.
WBS
TaskName Task# Duration(Days) TaskStarts TaskEnds Predecessors ResourceName ResourceRate($ISE)MaterialsRate
($ISE)Design 1 6 2015/1/28 2015/2/6
Conceptfinalising 1.1 1 2015/1/28 2015/1/28 Allfiveteammembers 1,000Initialsketchandanalysis 1.2 2 2015/1/29 2015/1/30 1.1 Gayatri,Huijian 800Createapartslist 1.3 1 2015/1/29 2015/1/29 1.2 Yanli 200Finalisingthematerial 1.4 1 2015/1/30 2015/1/30 1.3 Yanli 200
AutoCADdrawing(detailedanalysiswithtolerances) 1.5 2 2015/2/4 2015/2/5 1.4 Huijian 400Designvalidation 1.6 1 2015/2/6 2015/2/6 1.5 Huijian 200
Costestimateanddatacompilation 2 2 2015/1/30 2015/2/2 1.1 Xue 400Fabricate 3 21 2015/2/9 2015/3/26
Identifyingthetoolrequirement 3.1 1 2015/2/9 2015/2/9 1 Yanli 200Procurement 3.2 3 2015/2/10 2015/2/12
Materialsandtoolsbuying 3.2.1 2 2015/2/10 2015/2/11 3.1 Yanli,Changda 800 70,000Qualitycheckofmaterials 3.2.2 1 2015/2/12 2015/2/12 3.2.1 Changda 200
Assembly 3.3 17 2015/3/24 2015/4/15Fabricationofchildparts 3.3.1 4 2015/3/24 2015/3/27 3.2 Allfiveteammembers 4,000
Subassemblyofframe 3.3.2 3 2015/3/30 2015/4/1 3.3.1 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 1,800QualityCheck 3.3.3 1 2015/4/2 2015/4/2 3.3.2 Xue 200
Subassemblyoflongarm 3.3.4 1 2015/4/3 2015/4/3 3.3.3 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 600Qualitycheck 3.3.5 1 2015/4/6 2015/4/6 3.3.4 Xue 200
Subassemblyofshortarm 3.3.6 2 2015/4/7 2015/4/8 3.3.5 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 1,200Qualitycheck 3.3.7 1 2015/4/9 2015/4/9 3.3.6 Changda 200FinalAssembly 3.3.8 4 2015/4/10 2015/4/15 3.3.7 Gayatri,Yanli,Huijian 2,400
Inspectionandtest 4 6 2015/4/16 2015/4/23Inspection 4.1 1 2015/4/16 2015/4/16 3.3 Yanli 200Performancetest 4.2 3 2015/4/17 2015/4/21 4.1 Allfiveteammembers 3,000Modification(ifrequired) 4.3 2 2015/4/22 2015/4/23 4.2 Huijian 400
Operatingmanual 4.4 2 2015/4/22 2015/4/23 4.2 Gayatri,Changda,Xue,Yanli 1,600
Weeklymeetings 5 13 Timedependsonscheduleofteammembers Allfiveteammembers 13,000
Task Durations & List of Resources
• Laborhours/person/day =2
Schedule Baseline Plan – Gantt Chart
• G:Gayatri;H:Huijian;Y:Yanli;C:Changda;X:Xue• All:Gayatri,Huijian,Yanli,Changda,Xue
Gantt Chart-Actual
• G:Gayatri;H:Huijian;Y:Yanli;C:Changda;X:Xue• All:Gayatri,Huijian,Yanli,Changda,Xue
TaskName Task# Duration(Days) TaskStarts TaskEnds Predecessors ResourceName ResourceRate($ISE)MaterialsRate
($ISE)Design 1 6 2015/1/28 2015/2/6
Conceptfinalising 1.1 1 2015/1/28 2015/1/28 Allfiveteammembers 1,000Initialsketchandanalysis 1.2 2 2015/1/29 2015/1/30 1.1 Gayatri,Huijian 800Createapartslist 1.3 1 2015/1/29 2015/1/29 1.2 Yanli 200Finalisingthematerial 1.4 1 2015/1/30 2015/1/30 1.3 Yanli 200
AutoCADdrawing(detailedanalysiswithtolerances) 1.5 2 2015/2/4 2015/2/5 1.4 Huijian 400Designvalidation 1.6 1 2015/2/6 2015/2/6 1.5 Huijian 200
Costestimateanddatacompilation 2 2 2015/1/30 2015/2/2 1.1 Xue 400Fabricate 3 21 2015/2/9 2015/3/26
Identifyingthetoolrequirement 3.1 1 2015/2/9 2015/2/9 1 Yanli 200Procurement 3.2 3 2015/2/10 2015/2/12
Materialsandtoolsbuying 3.2.1 2 2015/2/10 2015/2/11 3.1 Yanli,Changda 800 70,000Qualitycheckofmaterials 3.2.2 1 2015/2/12 2015/2/12 3.2.1 Changda 200
Assembly 3.3 17 2015/3/24 2015/4/15Fabricationofchildparts 3.3.1 4 2015/3/24 2015/3/27 3.2 Allfiveteammembers 4,000
Subassemblyofframe 3.3.2 3 2015/3/30 2015/4/1 3.3.1 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 1,800QualityCheck 3.3.3 1 2015/4/2 2015/4/2 3.3.2 Xue 200
Subassemblyoflongarm 3.3.4 1 2015/4/3 2015/4/3 3.3.3 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 600Qualitycheck 3.3.5 1 2015/4/6 2015/4/6 3.3.4 Xue 200
Subassemblyofshortarm 3.3.6 2 2015/4/7 2015/4/8 3.3.5 Gayatri,Changda,Xue 1,200Qualitycheck 3.3.7 1 2015/4/9 2015/4/9 3.3.6 Changda 200FinalAssembly 3.3.8 4 2015/4/10 2015/4/15 3.3.7 Gayatri,Yanli,Huijian 2,400
Inspectionandtest 4 6 2015/4/16 2015/4/23Inspection 4.1 1 2015/4/16 2015/4/16 3.3 Yanli 200Performancetest 4.2 3 2015/4/17 2015/4/21 4.1 Allfiveteammembers 3,000Modification(ifrequired) 4.3 2 2015/4/22 2015/4/23 4.2 Huijian 400
Operatingmanual 4.4 2 2015/4/22 2015/4/23 4.2 Gayatri,Changda,Xue,Yanli 1,600
Weeklymeetings 5 13 Timedependsonscheduleofteammembers Allfiveteammembers 13,000
Cost Baseline
• Laborhours/person/day =2
Cost Baseline
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Cost Baseline Graph
Dailytotalcost($ISE/100)
Cumtotalcost($ISE/100)
Weekending Weeklytimespent Totalhrs.Labor Expenses
($ISE)Weeklycost
($ISE) Cum.cost($ISE)
($ISE)
Gayatri Changda Yanli Huijian Xue
30-Jan 8 4 8 8 6 34 3,400 0 3,400 3,400
6-Feb 2 2 2 8 4 18 1,800 70,000 71,800 75,200
13-Feb 2 8 8 2 2 22 2,200 0 2,200 77,400
20-Feb 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 78,400
27-Feb 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 79,400
6-Mar 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 80,400
13-Mar 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 81,400
20-Mar 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,000 0 1,000 82,400
27-Mar 10 10 10 10 10 50 5,000 0 5,000 87,400
3-Apr 10 10 2 2 12 36 3,600 0 3,600 91,000
10-Apr 8 8 4 4 8 32 3,200 0 3,200 94,200
17-Apr 10 4 12 10 4 40 4,000 0 4,000 98,200
24-Apr 10 10 10 10 10 50 5,000 0 5,000 103,200
Weekly Cost Baseline
Week ending
Weekly time spent Total hrs. Labor ($ ISE)
Expenses ($)
Expenses ($ISE)
Weekly cost
($ISE)
Cum. cost
($ISE)
Cum. budget ($ISE)
Variance
Gayatri Changda Yanli Huijian Xue
Jan 30 6 2 6 6 4 24 2400 0 0 2400 2400 3400 1000
Feb 6 2 2 2 8 4 18 1800 0 0 1800 4200 75200 71000
Feb 13 2 2 2 4 2 12 1200 0 0 1200 5400 77400 72000
Feb 20 4 4 5 2 4 19 1900 25.78 25780 27680 33080 78400 45320
Feb 27 2 2 2 2 2 10 1000 0 0 1000 34080 79400 45320
Mar 6 2 2 2 2 2 10 1000 0 0 1000 35080 80400 45320
Mar 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35080 81400 46320
Mar 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35080 82400 47320
Mar 27 4 4 4 4 4 20 2000 0 0 2000 37080 87400 50320
April 3 7 7 7 7 7 35 4250 6.28 6280 10530 47610 91000 43390
April 10 5 5 5 5 5 25 3250 0 0 3250 50860 94200 43340
April 17 5 5 5 5 5 5 3250 0 0 3250 54110 98200 44090
April 24 9 8 8 8 9 42 5200 0 0 5200 59310 103200 43890
Cost – Actual Cost
Cost – Actual Cost
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000Cum.cost
Cum.budget
Variance
Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Week7 Week8 Week9 Week10 Week11 Week12 Week13Day 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 64
PlanValue($ISE) 2400 3200 74400 74400 74400 74400 74400 74400 78400 81000 83200 86200 90200ActualCost($ISE) 2400 3200 3400 30880 30880 30880 30880 30880 32880 36050 38300 40050 45250
EarnedValue($ISE) 2200 3200 3400 30880 30880 30880 30880 30880 32880 36050 37550 37550 45250CV=EV- AC($ISE) -200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -750 -2500 0
SV=EV- PV($ISE) -200 0 -71000 -43520 -43520 -43520 -43520 -43520 -45520 -44950 -45650 -48650 -44950
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
01 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63
CostVariance
SV and CV - Performance (0-100 Rule)
-80000
-70000
-60000
-50000
-40000
-30000
-20000
-10000
01 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63
ScheduleVariance
SV and CV – Analysis• Week 1: CV and SV are negative because we didn’t count the weekly meeting cost($ISE200)• Week 2 – Week 10:
CV are zero, because we finished the tasks of second week. But during week 3- Week 8, due to our midterm and spring break, we didn’t work at that period. At Week 9, we requested for change of schedule baseline and cost baseline, afterwards, we followed on the schedule of week 9 and week 10.
SV: There is a big variance in week 3, it is because we didn’t buy material as the schedule required. During week 4 – week 8, there are a constant variance ($ISE43520) because we bought the material at a much lower price than we estimated, the differenceis $ISE43520 . At week 9, the variance becomes bigger, it just because we finished task 3.3.1 with $ISE2000 instead of $ISE4000.Week 10, because we used less time to finish the tasks than we planned.• Week 11 – Week 12:
CV - There are two negative variance because we started the tasks of 4.3 and 4.4 ahead of schedule, and finished them on time. Therefore the time span is longer than our schedule baseline which results the big variance.
SV – During these two weeks, the variances become larger. This is also we started the tasks of 4.3 and 4.4 ahead of schedule, and finished them on time. Therefore the time span is longer than our schedule baseline which results the big variance.• Week 13:
CV is zero. SV is negative because we save a lot of cost than we estimated on the materials buying.
In a word, from SV and CV graphs, our CV and SV are always non-positive. This is because we fall behind the schedule. For the SV, there is another reason that results in the negative SV, which is our overestimation of our material costs.
Risk Management – the PlanTask RiskEvent#and
DescriptionProb.%(A)
Impact$ISE(B)
RiskEventStatus(Ax B)
Action Owner
Preventive(MainPlan)
TriggerPoint Contingent(PlanB)
ConceptFinalizing&InitialSketch
1 Designdoesnot meetrequirementofclient
40% 1,800 720 UseMatlab tosimulatethethrowingprocessandcalculatetheoptimalparameters
Lackofexperienceinmechanical analysisandengineeringdesign
Re-design Gayatri,Huijian
CostEstimate 2 Costisunderestimated
60% 200 120 Sum upcoststaskbytaskbasedonWBS
Lackof practicalexperience
Change thecostbaseline andrequestapprovalfromclient
Xue
ToolRequirementIdentification
3 Incompleteidentification oftools
20% 400 80 Identifythetoolsasthedesigners’specification
Lackofcommunicationbetween design andmanufacturingteam
Identifythemissing toolsandbuythem
Yanli
MaterialsandTools Buying
4 Materialisweakoroflowquality
20% 5,000 1,000 Researchandcomparisonofdifferentmaterialresources
Lackofknowledge toidentify thequality
Buynewmaterialswithgoodquality
Yanli,Changda
Assembly 5 Child partsorsubassemblies notmatchdesignspecifications
40% 5,300 2,120 Measureandcutasthedesign’sspecification
Errorsinmeasuring orcutting
Fabricatenewpartsorchangedesign
Allfivemembers
Risk Management – the Steps Taken
• Design: we use Matlab to validate design and decide the tolerance on critical part
• Tools: we looked for additional resources for tools instead of depending on only one resource
• Materials: search for suppliers (bookstore, Home Depot) and finalizing the suppliers based on quality and cost; bought extra materials in case of manufacturing damage
• Assembly: Extra time allocated to assembly; thorough discussion for any change in design, and changes in design are for ease of assembly, no change in critical parts
• Schedule: we work extra time; we crash the project; we develop agenda before meeting and follow up the decided activities
• Monitor and control: we apply project management tools such as inch-stone, EVA to control the triple constraints of the project
Design Layout (Preliminary Design )
Final Design
Design – Prototype
Trial Distancetotarget(inch)
1 1.42 03 04 2.15 1.96 0.77 08 1.29 2.710 0
Mean 1.0
Variance 1.022
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance/inch
Trial
Evidence That the Trebuchet Meets Requirements
• We recorded a video which will show the performance.
Video Evidence
Performance - Design EvolutionParametersLength 1.5mHeight 1mWeight 2KgProjectile 7gAngle -30°; 45°
Lessons LearnedProject Management aspect
• Team is the core of entire project. We take fully advantage of every team member’s strongpoint and distribute work package accordingly.(eg, one person is dedicated to monitor project activities is very effective)
• We abide by the control requirements of triple constraint and it is useful.(eg, time - on time, ahead of schedule 10 days; cost – within budget, save 46%; performance – acceptable)
• Project schedule is the critical tool for project success. We should spend more time to build and track schedule so that better control the progress.
• Developing risk response plan early is important.
• Since the duration of this project is quite long, it is very necessary to develop and maintain the team morale and harmony.
• It is quite important to distribute the work equally.
• Make sure all team members are bought in and keep everyone updated.
Lessons Learned
Technical Aspect
• We should explore more and make better use of MS project software to control and monitor the entire project.
• Consider the DFMEA (Design for Manufacturing and Assembly) points in initial design.
• Preparation of prototype to identify tools and manufacturing issues.
• Use cost estimation methods(eg, WBS elements, up-down) in order to predict the cost of the project more realistically.
Project Management aspect _ Continue
• In order to make the weekly meeting more efficient, we should spend more time for the preparation of the agenda and while meeting we should clear with the agenda and follow up of the responsibilities decided.
• Involvement and agreement of each team member in each critical decision of the project.
TEAM
03
top related