EDITOR'S ' FORWARD
PREFACE................................................................................................................................V
CHAPTER1 - FOUNDATION CCPM The TOC solution for improving the
management of single projects and the use of the U shape for
structuring TOC knowledge and developing TOC logistical
applications Oded Cohen 1
Product Development Projects:Guidelines for assessing the
potential of new products and the planning of various features in a
project Eli Schragenheim 51
CHAPTER2 - IMPLEMENTATION Practical aspects of implementing
Critical Chain Project Management CCPM Examplesof implementation
procedures Jelena Fedurko 71
CHAPTER3 APPLICATION DEVELOPMENTS Using TOC CCPM S&T Tree to
rapidly improve performance of new product developmentprojects:A
case study in Taiwan Yunn-Jin Hwang Yu-Min Chang Rong-Kwei Li
95
A strategic projects management solution developed from Theory
of Constraints concepts Philip J. Viljoen Exploration of project
management to the Machine Tool Industry in Taiwan Frances Su 123
111
CHAPTER4 ACADEMIC CASE STUDIES Critical Chain Project Management
theory and practice Roy Stratton Experiences consulting companies
in Colombia applying the CCPM Goldratt webcast series Alejandro
Fernandez Rivera 173 149
CHAPTER5 TEACHING TOOL Project management systems theory taught
through games James R Holt 197
I
EDITORS
FORWARD
The Theory of Constraints body of knowledge has expanded rapidly
over the last three decades. It springs from complex systems
theory, multi-dimensional linear programming and a belief that
logic can successfully be applied to technical-social human
organizations. One of its most exciting applications is in the area
of multi-project management known world-wide as Critical Chain
Project Management, or CCPM. This books brings to the project
manager a succinct overview and some of the major developments,
some very recent, in the last 20 years. The eleven authors from
seven countries offer useful insights into the CCPM application
body of knowledge from the Goldratt Schools perspective.
As with other existing applications of TOC thinking (including
Operations, Supply Chain, Marketing, Sales, Accounting, Finance),
parts of CCPM are counter-intuitive. We all try to do the best we
can. Unfortunately, in large organizations, what is best for one
part of the organization is rarely best for the organization as a
whole. The term for this is sub-optimization or, more precisely,
optimizing at a local level to the detriment of the larger
organization. In project management, the result of focusing on
individual task performance frequently results in missed due dates,
over-run budgets, and inadequate project scope. This generates
unhappy customers and, for the organization, lost sales, decreasing
profits and poor stock performance on the exchange market.
The nine articles in this book, separated into five chapters,
are designed to provide the knowledge and guidance to overcome
sub-optimization and produce successful projects beyond most
managers wildest dreams.
Chapter 1 presents the foundation knowledge. Oded Cohen explains
the complete structure and basis for the CCPM application. The full
solution to the multi-project management problem consists of nine
injections (actions), one to set the proper mindset, three to do
the planning, and five to control the implementation execution. But
management is not a static exercise. There are always new project
opportunities. Eli Schragenheim addresses, in a very pragmatic way,
how mangers can decide whether to accept or reject these new
projects. This is an excellent introduction to CCPM at a
high-content level.
II
Chapter 2 builds on this theoretical foundation with an article
by Jelena Fedurko explaining how CCPM can be implemented in a large
company. Understanding the management imperative, and based on
Goldratt Group experiences, the necessary implementation actions
are field-tested, as well as clear and detailed.
Chapter 3s three articles speak to recent developments in CCPM
implementations. Addressing two concerns, first that TOC is too
theoretical and, second, that CCPM must be able to handle
uncertainty. Yunn-Jin Hwang, Yu-Min Chang, and Rong-Kwei Li
describe the adaptation and use of CCPM and the Strategy and Tactic
tree in Taiwan. They describe successful CCPM implementations in
high-tech electronic component manufacturing. Philip Viljoen
discusses the use of Strategy and Tactic trees in CCPM with
reference to management literature and with a field case study.
Frances Su presents an exploration of TOC
applications, to form the holistic approach for the continuous
improvement of the machine tool industries.
Chapter 4, recognizing that TOC has moved from the field to the
classroom, uses academic case studies to meet the education and
training needs. Roy Stratton shares the Goldratt Group experience
of implementing CCPM in the Japanese construction industry and
evaluates the use of the Strategy and Tactic tree within CCPM.
Alejandro Fernandez Rivera reports on several CCPM implementations
in Colombia. He then responds to the recognition that multi-project
management is indeed the task of most managers and addresses those
training needs.
Finally, in Chapter 5, James Holt deals with three
counter-intuitive problems by presenting some simple games that
have proved effective in teaching CCPM. The first, Job Shop Game,
shows the need to choke the release of projects because projects
released early do not finish early but instead slow all projects
down. The second, Sixes Game, shows how providing safety at the
task level extends the time needed for completion of the project.
The third, Assembly Game, demonstrates the value of feeder buffers
and introduces the concept of a resource bench.
These nine articles cover the CCPM Application body of knowledge
from theory and structure through implementations, developments and
assessments and, finally, to teaching some difficult material. It
is a goldmine of Project Management information. If you are new
to
III
project management, this book will help you do your job. If you
are an experienced project manager and are not already using CCPM,
you really need this book.
Alan H. Leader Editor
IV
EDITOR
Dr. Alan H. Leader received his bachelors and masters degrees
from the University of Rochester, and his doctorate in business
from Indiana University. In addition to several years of industrial
production experience, he has taught Management at Western Michigan
University and the University of Guam, earning tenure and the rank
of Professor at both. He was appointed Dean of the College of
Business and Public Administration at the UoG, and Dean of the
School of Business and Economics at Southern Connecticut State
University. He left SCSU for Seattle, taught at Seattle University,
and consults (as Leader Associates) with businesses, governmental
units and universities. Dr. Leader is a Jonahs Jonah with the
A.Y.Goldratt Institute (AGI). He has served on international and
educational committees of his Rotary Clubs, the Volunteer Services
Board of the University of Washington Medical School Hospital, the
John Stanford International School, in the National Defense
Executive Reserve (FEMA), and as a certified Mediator in the
Snohomish, Island and Skagit counties Dispute Resolution Center.
Dr. Leader has presented papers and published widely in the areas
of organization structure and effectiveness, decision making,
strategic planning and continual quality improvement. He was
awarded the Order of the Chamorri by the government of Guam, the
Award for Teaching Excellence by WMU, the Herman B Wells Leadership
Seminar Research Grant by IU, and a Ford Foundation Fellowship. Dr.
Leader was named Dean Emeritus by SCSU. He has been involved with
the Theory of Constraints since the late 1980s, is a member of the
Goldratt Schools faculty, and chairs the Thinking Processes
Committee of the TOCICO. His goal is to help people learn and apply
rules of logic and common sense to everyday life. He believes that
people have the necessary intuition, knowledge and experience to
make good judgmental decisions about themselves and their
relationships with others. He hopes to assist them to become more
effective in their homes and at their places of employment, and to
live happier, more fulfilling lives. Alan Leader is married (Louise
Bush Leader) with two sons, two daughters-in-law, three
granddaughters and a soon-to-be born great granddaughter.
V
PREFACE
This book contains a collection of articles on the subject of
CCPM Critical Chain Project Management written by faculty members
of Goldratt Schools. It provides an opportunity to tap into the
knowledge and experience of a unique group of leading TOC scholars
and practitioners.
The collection contains nine articles in five chapters:
foundations, implementation, applications developments, academic
case studies and teaching tool.
This collection of articles is relevant for project managers who
want to continuously improve their managerial skills and
capabilities and to ensure they provide professional delivery of
their projects. These articles are also aimed at the executives and
top management of organizations, at teachers and at students who
one day will be project managers.
TOC the Theory of Constraints was invented over thirty years ago
with the solution of DBR Drum Buffer Rope for managing production.
Since then, TOC has been continuously developed by Dr. Eli Goldratt
and a dedicated team around him. CCPM the TOC solution for project
management was developed in 1990 as a natural derivative of the DBR
solution.
This publication is within the mandate of Goldratt Schools. Our
mission is to make the TOC knowledge readily available for those
who want to learn about TOC through teaching. We provide programs
covering TOC methodology and the entire spectrum of solutions and
applications. We work in conjunction with universities, business
schools and training centers, providing them with our training
programs and training the trainers.
Thanks, to all my colleagues in Goldratt Schools for writing the
articles and contributing from their knowledge and views, to
Frances Su who has been the lively spirit behind this initiative to
publish this collection of
VI
articles, properly managed this ambitious project, and brought
it on time and within original promises, and, special thanks to
Alan Leader for editing all our articles and ensuring its common
style and quality.
Oded Cohen International Director Goldratt Schools
98 06
1
CCPM THE TOC SOLUTION FOR IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT OF SINGLE
PROJECTS AND THE USE OF THEU SHAPE FOR STRUCTURING TOC KNOWLEDGE
AND DEVELOPING TOC LOGISTICAL APPLICATIONSOded Cohen Goldrat
Schools
ABSTRACT For many years the systemic approach to improve systems
dealt with three major issues: the problem, the solution and
implementation of the solution.
Theory of constraints (TOC) has taken this approach further with
the constant view of providing the managerial and analytical tools
for handling the process of improvement. These tools ensure a high
impact with a minimal level of effort and provide significant
return for the investment in making it happen. TOC also the
explicit fourth step in providing an engine for continuous
improvement to ensure that systems never rest on their laurels but
continue to grow and achieve higher and higher performance relative
to their goals.
CCPM Critical Chain Project Management is the TOC solution for
better managing projects. It is a knowledge-based approach.
Part 1 of this article outlines the CCPM solution. It covers all
the suggested injections the elements of the CCPM solution. The
complete solution contains 9 injections: setting the right mindset
for managing the TOC way, 3 injections for planning and 5
injections for execution control. This provides the understanding
and the terminology of the CCPM solution that other articles refer
to in their work. This part also provides a guide for every project
manager who wants to deliver assigned projects on time, within
budget, and with the promised deliverables.
Part 2 presents the essence of TOC. We can define TOC as a
managerial approach that is: Focused Holistic Logical and provides
Win/Win.
2
98 06
The core structure of the TOC methodology the thinking processes
is captured in the U-shape. It gives the reader the logical base
for the CCPM solution. The basic methodology provides the logical
connections between the problems and the solutions. It helps to
enhance confidence in the analytical work that contains the
understanding of the challenges of managing projects and the solid
reasoning of the solution.
This article is focused on the project manager to enhance his or
her ability to manage their projects in a challenging environment.
Having good and professional project managers will help the
organization to handle multiple projects in a synchronized and
successful way by utilizing CCPM. This is dealt with by other
articles in this issue.
Keywords: TOC Methodology, U-shape for TOC Thinking Processes,
CCPM Injections, Managing single projects, Project planning &
execution control
1.
Introduction
TOC started years ago with improving production. It was only
natural that the knowledge that was developed, and the experience
that was gathered, would attract the desire to improve project
management.
Like production project management needs good planning and an
effective way to manage the execution of the plan. The unfolding
reality of the execution differs from the plan due to the
statistical fluctuations. The level of uncertainty is significantly
higher in projects as many of their planned activities go forward
with little prior experience (if any at all).
Management is put in charge of achieving objectives and goals.
The way to achieve a goal involves a journey that has its own flow.
Management has to manage this flow and continuously improve it to
ensure better and better results. The managerial approach has to
provide the direction of how to handle the high level of
uncertainty in both planning and execution of the plan. Once the
direction is provided, the whole mechanics can be developed for
detailed practicalities.
The traditional TOC solution for production, the DBR Drum Buffer
Rope for planning and
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
3
the Buffer Management (BM) can be used as a base for the
systemic management of projects. We just need to amend and modify
the solution to accommodate the high uncertainty in the expected
durations of the task. This includes within the project, as well as
the high percentage of touch time actual time that the tasks are
worked on by the resources relative to the overall lead time of the
project.
Before we dive into the explanation of the CCPM solution we need
to verify one fundamental question. Projects have been conducted
for thousands of years. Some of these projects produced the
magnificent wonders of the world. Yet, only in the second part of
the 20th
century has the importance of managing projects became so
apparent. Time and money started to dominate the requirements that
were put on the shoulders of companies and countries. This pressure
turned project management into a profession. The official kick-off
was the development and the use of P.E.R.T for the construction of
the Nautilus the first nuclear submarine in the early 1950s. This
high profile project was under pressure to deliver within a given
time scale. The PERT method used the concept of a critical path for
planning and execution. Thereafter, it became the dominant approach
for managing projects. It is amazing that the basic concepts of
project management are still the same as 60 years ago even though
the vast majority of the projects have not and are not delivered on
time, within budget and original specifications.
The problem is not that the method has been here for so many
years. The problem is that it does not provide the expected
results. Project managers around the globe struggle to deliver
within the agreed time, budget and deliverables. So, what are we
missing?
Analyzing the reality of project management reveals that in the
majority of the projects with commitments to time, money,
specifications, going over budget that is the most unpleasant and
painful failure. As the project struggles to be completed, there
are demands for more and more features. This creates a huge
pressure on the executives and the shareholders. In return, a
bigger pressure is put on the shoulders of the project managers
through the use of financial control.
Tighter financial control has proven to deliver better results
in some cases. Still, most of the projects do not meet the three
requirements time, budget and specifications. Financial
4
98 06
control forces the project managers to focus on every single
activity and to try to complete it within the estimated time and
budget. Given that a project may have many tasks performed at the
same time, the managers find themselves incapable of controlling
all the open tasks. TOC suggests an alternative way. Rather than
trying to complete every single task on time, TOC provides a focus
on the on-time completion of the entire project.
CCPM Critical Chain Project Management is the name given to the
TOC solution. The name was chosen to denote the departure from the
conventional method of critical path. It focuses on completing the
whole project on time. It is holistic, as it looks at the project
as a whole and not on every single task in isolation. It is
logical, as we can provide the conceptual base of the solution
using the TOC thinking processes. It is a win-win, as it takes into
account and supports the important needs of the key
stakeholders.
The move from managing projects through their locals (the tasks)
to the global (the project as a whole) demands a change in the
mindset of project managers. They have to commit to deliver the
project on the promised due date.
Therefore, when we come to design the CCPM solution we have to
consider three aspects: Mindset Planning Control of the execution
These aspects provide the basic structure for the CCPM
Solution:
The objective of CCPM the strategy is: Deliver the project on
time, in full and within budget.
The Tactics what is needed to be done to achieve the strategy
is: Implement all injections (elements) of CCPM for planning and
for controlling the execution. The solution contains 9 injections
in three groups.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
5
Figure 1: The general structure of CCPM solution for managing a
single project
Part 1 of this article covers all the injections of the
solution.
The Body of Knowledge of TOC supporting the CCPM solution can be
found in books, videos and self-learning media. The basic structure
of the TOC methodology for developing and capturing the knowledge
of the solution is covered in Part 2 of this article.
2.
Part 1
IMRPOVING WITH TOC CCPM FOR MANAGING SINGLE PROJECTS
We start with defining the boundaries of the system we want to
improve.
In single-project management the boundaries are:
all activities associated with managing a single project from
the point the project has been authorized until it comes to its
full completion to the satisfaction of the customer (external or
internal).
Then we agree on the system performance measurements.
For single projects they are:
6
98 06
On-time completion (due date performance) Within project budget
Meeting project specifications (commitments and promises to the
customers)
The full list of injections for the solution is:
Mindset Customers orders are the Prime Driver the Drum 1.
Achievement of the delivery commitments is established as a Prime
Measurement for managing project environment. Planning injections:
2. Project Planning Diagrams are in place with tasks resourced and
estimated for duration (while estimates of durations are
challenging but achievable). 3. Critical Chain determination
including resolving resource conflicts. 4. Buffers are inserted in
strategic points. Execution control injections: 5. Tasks are
performed according to the status of their corresponding buffers.
6. Resource Availability is monitored in anticipation of a new
planned task. 7. BM for corrective actions (expediting) is in
place. 8. Buffer penetration reasons are reviewed periodically for
POOGI. 9. Resources are monitored as potential CR Critical
Resources.
Implementing TOC CCPM
Implementing TOC CCPM is a project on its own. It contains
technical activities as well as communication with the relevant
people in the organization. They are the ones who must implement
the technical part and the managerial and behavioral facets of the
injections.
As such, it is recommended to address each and every injection
on its own, according to the sequence suggested by the template for
the TOC solution. For every injection we collect and present the
necessary knowledge to ensure the understanding of WHAT it is and
HOW are we going to implement it.
The WHAT is taken from the U-shape. It covers the essence of the
injection itself, the major
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
7
UDE(s) it addresses, the DE (the Desired Effects), the positive
outcome of the injection in the system, the logic of closing the
performance gaps and, eventually, the improved performance.
The HOW contains all the practical aspects of the
implementation. It deals with the technical parts, and also
suggests ways to overcome obstacles both technical and behavioral.
The necessary deliverables (I.O. Intermediate Objectives) are
suggested based on experience with implementing injections in
reality. The end result of the HOW part is a mini-project that
contains the skeleton of the activities and deliverables of the
implementation of the injection. The WHAT and the HOW are captured
by the full "injection flower".
Injection FlowerWhat DEUD E1 2
The Solution Design
3
NB R
InjHow IPImplementation Plan
The Implementation Plan
Figure 2: The injection flower
The suggestion to deal with one, or only a few, injections at a
time constitutes a modular implementation process with a mechanism
to capture all relevant knowledge, experience and know-how
associated with the injection. Every injection is developed and
implemented as a module on its own. This is the base for a databank
that can grow and incorporate the experience while the project is
in progress.
Lets start with the first group.
Mindset Customers orders are the Prime Driver the Drum
The first group contains just one and very important
injection:
8
98 06
Injection 1 Achievement of the delivery commitments is
established as a Prime Measurement for managing project
environment
What The essence of the injection:
The injection is manifested through the commitment by all levels
of management that meeting the promised delivery date promised to
the customer (internal or external) is the most important
measurement that projects strive to achieve. The promised delivery
date must be displayed and made visible to all the relevant people
associated with the project.
Measurements have significant impact on the behavior of people
in the organization. Hence, it is important that the way project
managers and projects are measured reflects the importance of
on-time delivery.
Even though this part deals with managing single projects, each
project operates within an environment of many projects. The
overall performance of all the completed projects can reflect the
overall level of reliability of the project environment. When a
project misses the delivery date, it hurts the companys performance
by delaying the income or the benefits that are generated by it.
There are three ways to measure the lateness:
i.
The number of projects that were delivered on time (or early)
versus the total number of projects within time buckets (e.g.
month, quarter, year). This is needed in order to measure the
Reliability of company. It is measured in percentage (%) and is
known as DDP Due Date performance. Murphy hits projects and,
therefore, it is impossible to achieve a DDP of 100%. However,
aiming to achieve over 95% DDP will set an outstanding
performance.
ii.
The amount of money that has been delivered on time or early
versus the total value of the projects within time buckets (%). The
target should be as close as possible to 100%. However, even one
late project that contains a lot of throughput can cause a drop in
this measure.
iii.
The financial impact of the late delivery T$D Throughput Dollar
Days. This measurement states the amount of money to be received
that has been delayed multiplied by the number of days delayed.
This is the same terminology that the banks
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
9
use when giving you a loan; how much money do you want to borrow
and for how long. Interest is paid on money days. The target of T$D
is to be zero. The lower the measurement, the less negative impact
the lateness has on the company as a whole.
Measuring performance continuously, ideally on a weekly basis,
can highlight the trends in improvement or deterioration.
The Current Reality Undesirable Effects (UDEs) To enable the
implementation of the new mindset for all levels of management, we
need to highlight the current situation. It is unsatisfactory. This
is done through recording the UDEs which are the permanent problems
that prevent project managers from the successful completion of
projects (time, budget and scope).
Typical UDEs in project environment are: There are too many cost
overruns against budget Existing projects are disrupted by extra
work Many projects take longer than expected We often struggle to
hit intermediate deadlines Revisions for late changes to the scope
hold us up Top management is under pressure to add more
resources
We use the CRS Current Reality Study - to establish that the
current situation of the specific area. I must fit the generic
environment in which the injections will operate well, as this
environment suffers from the above UDEs.
Current Reality Study (questions to be asked about a specific
project environment to validate the UDEs)
Current on-time delivery.
How many projects are delivered on time? What
percentage? How many were delivered as per the ORIGINAL date
requested by the customer? Damage to the customer. What are the
difficulties that were caused to the
customers (internal or external) due to the lateness of the
projects?
10
98 06
Perception of the market How does the market perceive the
company in terms of reliability performance? Does the company get
new customers and how difficult is it to retain existing
customers?
Damage to the company.
Are there any penalties associated with late deliveries?
How much money has the company lost due to late delivery?
Expediting How much managerial efforts, negotiations and extra
expenses are associated with trying to meet the project due dates?
Quality problems. Because of constant pressure to rush the delaying
projects, are
there situations which quality or features are compromised?
The first injection is a governing injection. We have yet to
make additional checks for the other injections.
The Future reality the DE the positive outcomes of the
injection
When the new mindset is adopted, the right measurements are
operational, and all the injections are in place, we can expect a
significant improvement in the completion of the project
commitments time, budget and specifications. When describing the
future reality, we portray the vision of how the environment will
operate once the injection is fully implemented.
We can expect the following positive outcomes:
Established reliability by on-time delivery of projects.
Improved focus due to clear measurements of the magnitude of
lateness of projects. Desire for better tools for project planning
and execution control driven by a strong desire to know the real
status of the project in conjunction with the on-time delivery.
Less need to expedite as early indications of threat to the due
date may prompt project managers to take corrective actions when
there is still time to recover from the potential lateness.
More stability of the process due to the focus of project
manager on the time aspect of the progress of the project.
Potentially more sales
due to increased reliability.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
11
Injection 1 is successfully implemented when the proper
measurements for on-time delivery such as DDP or T$D reports are
produced and management (project and top) uses them. Thereafter, we
may experience some negative side effects. They should be addressed
and handled prior to the commencement of the implementation of the
solution through the use of the NBR (Negative Branch Reservation)
process.
Potential NBR we have to be careful that the change that is
promoted by Injection 1 focusing on the meeting the delivery date
of the project does not bring the resources to do a lesser job on
the scope and/or to be reckless with budget control.
Suggestion: Listen to the people and record any concern that
deals with policies, the way they are measured and the behavior of
other people. Carefully examine the formal and the informal
communication regarding the performance of the projects. Provide
clarity and direction in cases when you can identify that people do
not know how to behave and operate under the new mindset.
Re-enforcement of Injection 1 is critical!
HOW The way the injection will operate in reality and the plan
to implement the injection.
Once we know the What, the essence of the injection and the
relevant knowledge, we need to describe how it will operate in
reality in conjunction with all the other entities. When this is
clear, we can move to develop a mini implementation plan to build
what is necessary for the injection to function.
The injection is integrated into the managerial flows of the
project. There are three types of flow in organizations: a) The
process flow the progress of the project from one task to the
other. b) The information flow the signals from the process flow
about the status and progress of the work. This information is
aimed at management and/or the workforce. c) The decision flow.
Based on the information, decisions are made with the view of
maintaining the flow or improving it.
12
98 06
Figure 3: The typical flows to be managed
Operating the injection includes: Technical procedures and
reports. Management needs to get information about the progress of
the orders. Some of the injections are activated through technical
procedures, usually with the help of IT programs. This part usually
deals with the information flow.
T\D Repor t25,000 23,770 22,257 2,231 2 20,928 19,445 18,278
21,411 20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
03 / 5
4 / 1 2 /
4 / 3
4 / 4
4 / 1
5 / 2
5 / 3
5 / 4
5 / 1
6 / 2
6 / 3
6 / 4
6 / 5
6 / 1
7 / 2
7 / 3
7 / 4
7 / 1
8 / 2
8 / 3
8 / 4
8
Figure 4: And example of T$D in Yens. Managerial procedures. The
managerial procedures establish what decisions and actions should
be taken by management in order to ensure on-time delivery. Many
times these decisions are carried out through the use of IT
programs. This part deals with the decision flow.
On-going procedures are developed as a part of the
implementation plan, usually facilitated by a TOC practitioner.
Implementing the Injection
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
13
Implementing an injection is a mini-project in itself (a part of
the overall project on implementing the TOC Solution). Therefore,
implementing an injection needs a plan which consists of tasks and
deliverables. Deliverables are tangible outcomes that are produced
or achieved by the processes. Tasks are actions that are performed
by the resources. Each task needs one or more resources and has an
expected duration for completion.
An example: Designing the integration of the injection into the
current system. At the outset of the implementation the current
managerial processes are recorded on the deployment chart. The
deployment chart describes the synchronization between all the
functions that participate in the planning of the project and the
control of the execution of the plans.
The new injection contains changes to the way projects are
managed within the organization. The changes are reflected in the
managerial procedures. To enable management to make decisions
according to the new injections some reports must be prepared
through technical procedures. The above changes should be reflected
on the deployment chart. This calls for several tasks to be
performed in the implementation plan. Here is an example of a chunk
from an implementation plan that contains three tasks and one major
deliverable.
Figure 5: An example of a part of an implementation plan.
So far we have covered Injection 1 that deals with the mindset
which is absolutely necessary for implementing CCPM. Lets move to
the second group of injections 2-3-4 that deal with Project
Planning.
Planning injections:
This group of injections deals with creating a quality project
plan.
14
98 06
Figure 6: CCPM Planning Injections
The criteria for good planning contain three elements. Good
planning should: i. Provide financial benefits by the successful
completion of the project on time, within budget and according to
the promised specification. The project generates Throughput for
the contractor of the project. ii. Be realistic the plan does not
contain conditions that are known to be unrealistic (such as
resource loading over 100% of available capacity). iii. Immunize
against disruptions (Murphy and uncertainty).
Financial benefits are achieved by completing the project on
time and within the budget. Meeting the specifications is a
necessary condition for completing the project and handing it over
to the customer. The completion date determines the throughput for
the project. Injection 1 covers the requirement for financial
benefits by accepting the importance of on-time completion. The
purpose of the plan is to ensure that it is possible to complete
the project on time while accommodating for potential variations
during its execution. Injections 2 and 3 ensure the plan is
realistic and Injection 4 protects the plan from Murphy by
inserting buffers in strategic points in the project flow.
The quality of the Project Plan: The quality of the project plan
is critical for the implementation of the planning phase. In
reality, any mistake in the planning is caught at the execution
phase. However, the corrective actions may be costly and may have
significant impact on the ability to
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
15
complete on time. Therefore, the better the plan, the easier it
will be at the execution phase. It is the responsibility of the
project manager to ensure that the project plan reflects the full
understanding of what the project must accomplish in order to
successfully finish on time and within the original promises.
Injection 2 Project Planning Diagrams are in place with tasks
resourced and estimated for duration (estimates of durations are
challenging but achievable)
What Project plans are being created in a diagrammatic format
that clearly show all the important tasks of the project.
The diagram can be bar chart (PERT) or a Gantt chart.
Figure 7: An example of a project planning diagram in a PERT
structure
Figure 8: An example of a project planning diagram as a Gantt
Chart
While developing the project diagram we have to ensure: Data
integrity all tasks have to be checked for dependencies. The
relationships between two tasks must be clearly defined. Some tasks
are not interconnected at all. This means that they can be
performed in
16
98 06
parallel. However, if there is a dependency between two tasks.
the relationship between them determines the sequence of performing
them. This is very important for the planning and for the
execution. The simplest dependency and the most recommended one to
use is Finish to Start. This means that a task cannot be started
unless the predecessor has been completed. Usually it is because
the task needs a tangible deliverable from the previous task as a
major input. The relationships of Finish to Start are used to
calculate the project timeline and determine the completion date.
Any other relationship (that may be used in the critical path
software) complicates the work of the CCPM software packages (some
of the available packages do not support any of the other
relationships). In checking the data, we have to ensure that every
task also contains information on the resources that are needed and
the time estimated to perform it. Estimation times challenging but
achievable. The time estimations have to go through a challenging
process. Time estimations are subject to uncertainty and fluctuate
statistically. In the process of estimating duration of performing
a task, people tend to include safety to cover for the unknown. TOC
claims that while the safety is needed, it should not be in the
level of the task but in the level of the whole project. Hence,
CCPM strongly suggests using as estimation the time duration that
is not easy to achieve but still possible. By choosing such
estimation some of the safety is cut off the task time. The time
that is cut from the task is used for the project buffer to allow
for fluctuations in execution. At the same time, using ambitious
time estimation will allow positive fluctuations, when tasks are
completed in shorter than planned time, to pass their progress to
the next tasks and support the on-time completion of the whole
project.
It is well known that the statistical distribution of the task
duration is skewed. This means that using average time is
unrealistic, as sometimes the length of the task can be
significantly longer than the average. The following graph is a
typical presentation of such statistical pattern.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
17
Figure 9: The statistical pattern of the task duration time
The TOC recommendation is to use the time estimation called
50/50 (median in statistical terms). This is to denote that there
is a 50% chance of completing the task on or before the median
time. We still have to remember that there is also 50% probability
of completing that task after this time. This is to ensure that
customers or management do not turn this estimation into a
commitment. Completeness the diagram should reflect the views of
the key players participating in the project. This includes the
necessary and sufficient actions and deliverables to complete the
project on time, within budget, and to the committed
specifications.
How Establishing the procedures that will generate the quality
Project Planning Diagram. There are three procedures: Procedure to
develop a dependency diagram and check its quality. Procedure to
agree on and record the resources needed for each task. Procedure
to estimate tasks duration times, to challenge them, and agree on
challenging but achievable estimates.
Once the structure of the project is available it can be entered
into a project planning software package (such as MS-Projects). The
rest of the injections will need a CCPM software package (one of
several that are available in the market place). It is highly
recommended to have a simple and practical project plan. TOC
guidelines suggest that the plan should not have more than 300
tasks, and the task duration should be not less than 1% of the
total lead time or
18
98 06
longer than 10%.
Injection 3 Critical Chain is determined through resolving
resource conflicts
What Sorting out Resource Contention. In order to ensure that
the project plan is realistic, we must identify and address
resource contention situations caused which occurs when the plan
requires the same resource to perform more than one task
simultaneously. The CCPM solution is to sequence the tasks by
creating additional dependencies between tasks due to availability
of resources this is the Critical Chain approach.
The Critical Chain is the longest chain of dependent events one
that takes into consideration ALL dependencies (including task and
resource dependencies). Given finite resources for the project, the
Critical Chain reflects the minimum time it will take the project
to be completed. Under the project structure captured in Injection
2 there is no way to further compress the time. Given that the
objective is to finish the project to get the expected throughput,
the Critical Chain is a true presentation of the project constraint
that determines the performance level of the project.
Lets demonstrate the creation of the Critical Chain on the
dependency diagram presented in Figures 7 and 8. Every task
contains the following data: task number, the resource for
performing this task and the estimated duration in days. The
traditional approach looks for the Critical Path the longest chain
of content dependent tasks. Path is 56 days. In this example, the
Critical
However, if there is only one available resource M (magenta)
needed to perform Task 3 and Task 5 that are practically parallel,
there is a potential resource contention in the plan. Solving the
contention is done by creating dependency between these two tasks
that need resource M. There are two options for creating the
resource dependency: Task 3 Task 3. Each one of them can resolve
the conflict. Task 5 or Task 5
In this example the critical chain tasks are: 4-W16 5-M16 3-M16
6-C20. Total length of the Critical Chain is 68 days. This is more
realistic than the 56 days suggested by the Critical
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
19
Path.
Figure 10: Creating the Critical Chain
Please note: If there is no resource contention, then the
Critical Chain is identical to the Critical Path. A software
program can check several alternatives for Critical Chain and
choose one Critical Chain that has the potential to be shorter than
the others. None of packages commits or should commit to finding
the shortest Critical Chain. The objective is to resolve the
resource contention not to optimize. Most software packages provide
the feature that enables the user to choose between two potential
Critical Chains.
The choice of the name CCPM highlights the departure from the
approach of the Critical Path. Yet, the direction of the solution
is dictated by the way we address and manage uncertainty. This is
done through planning the buffers and using them to manage the
execution.
How Injection 3 is technical. Even though determining the
Critical Chain can be done manually, it is better performed by the
software packages.
Injection 4 Buffers are inserted in strategic points
What The Critical Chain of each project is protected by the
placing of sufficient time buffers at strategic points within the
flow of tasks:
20
98 06
Project Completion Buffer (PB) Feeding Buffers (FB)
Figure 11: Critical Chain with buffers
The Project Buffer (PB) is there to protect the project from the
fluctuations of the Critical Chain. Every task is subject to
statistical fluctuation and so are the tasks of the Critical Chain.
There is high probability that the accumulation of all the
fluctuations will exceed the time that was planned for the Critical
Chain. Therefore, we have to allow some more time to absorb its
fluctuation. The additional time is there to protect the completion
date of the project and hence it is called a Buffer.
There are two immediate questions that should pop up: i. What
should be the size of the buffer? The recommendation is to use a
simple formula of ensuring that the Project Buffer will be
calculated as 50% of the time duration of the Critical Chain. As in
our example, the Critical Chain is 68 days, the Project Buffer is
planned to be 34 days. ii. How do we ensure that the buffer does
not elongate the overall duration of the project? The answer to
that was established in Injection 2. While challenging the
estimation of the task duration, the suggestion was to choose the
50/50 time estimation. Even after handling the resource contention
through constructing the Critical Chain, the overall duration is
shorter than the one that would have been used by the Critical Path
method. Theoretically, about 50% of the project lead time was cut
by challenging the duration estimation and only half of this cut
time is brought back into the buffer.
The Feeding Buffer (FB) is to protect the Critical Chain from
fluctuations in the feeding leg. We may say that tasks 1 and 2 are
likely to take longer than planned. Each task has 50% probability
to be completed on time and the chance that the two of them will be
completed on time is 25%. That means that there is a 75% chance
that the leg will take longer than the
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
21
planned 20 days (task 1 10 days and task 2 10 days). When this
happens, a delay is caused to the Critical Chain. Therefore, we put
the Feeding Buffer at the integration point when the feeder enters
into the Critical Chain.
The suggested size of the Feeding Buffer is 50% of the duration
of the feeding leg. We remember that in the planning phase the
duration of the tasks on the feeding leg were already challenging
with the individual safety removed from them.
After inserting the buffers, positioning of tasks and legs of
the project can be changed. However, we do not revisit the Critical
Chain for any alterations after the insertion of the buffers. After
inserting the buffers you may see some situations that may worry
you. Here are two typical concerns: i. A feeding leg is longer than
the critical chain. This does NOT make it now into a new critical
chain. It is just a feeder that has to protect the Critical Chain.
Start this leg earlier than the Critical Chain. It is OK for a
feeding leg to start before the first task of the CC. The entire
duration of the project can be calculated as Critical Chain plus
Project Buffer plus the length of the longest feeding leg until the
start of the first Critical Chain task. If the beginning of the
feeding task crosses current time into the past, based on realistic
starting date of the first task of the project, then the whole plan
is pushed into the future. ii. Because of resource contention, or
due to dependencies between a feeding leg and the Critical Chain,
holes can be detected in the Critical Chain. This is legitimate. As
long as the total duration of the project is acceptable we can live
with some time breaks in the Critical Chain.
How all CCPM software packages have the feature to calculate and
insert the buffers. Technically the process of inserting the
buffers is simple. After inserting the buffers, we get a predicted
date for completing the project. This date may differ from the date
that the project customer wants. If this date is later than
requested or promised to the customer, we have to go through
another iteration of performing injections 2,3 and 4 to review the
Critical Chain and check for ideas on how to break some
dependencies. This can be done through performing
22
98 06
tasks, or parts of tasks, in parallel rather than in a
consecutive way. This means by breaking the task dependencies,
adding more resources, or offloading tasks from a resource under
contention to more available resources (even if they are less
skilled and take longer to perform).
All the above changes have to be introduced into the project
diagram (Injection 2) and then continued to Injections 3 and 4.
This should improve the situation and bring the projected
completion date close to the desired one.
The managerial procedures for Injection 4 should clearly define:
The acceptance process of a predicted delivery date; The escalation
process, when the project manager cannot find an agreed way to meet
the delivery date as required by the customer; and A clear process
to finalize the delivery date without compromising on the planning
requirements (such as cutting project buffers or forcing totally
unrealistic task durations).
By the end of this group of injections, 2, 3 and 4, we have a
tangible deliverable: a good project plan which is realistic,
buffered against fluctuations, and with a projected date that is
accepted by the customer. Now we can move to execution control.
Execution Control
Every project has an official starting date. It is usually
called, a project kick-off. This indicates the point in which tasks
can start to be performed. It gives permission to withdraw
materials and funds from the project budget. After the kick-off,
the project moves from the planning mode into the execution
mode.
The reality of the project execution is Delays!
Delays are caused primarily by tasks that take longer than
planned and tasks that cannot start when they should. The delays
are legitimate as they are natural consequences of the inherent
nature of performing tasks in an uncertain environment. TOC handles
the uncertainty though the use of buffers in the planning phase and
in the control of the execution phase.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
23
The CCPM solution mechanism to compensate for the delays is by
protecting them with time from the corresponding buffer. Any delay
in the Critical Chain consumes time from the PB, Project Completion
Buffer. Any delay on the feeders consumes time from the FB, Feeding
Buffer, of the specific feeder (every feeder has its own FB).
Penetration of the Project
Completion Buffer prevents the expected completion of the whole
project, assuming that the rest of the tasks on the Critical Chain
will behave precisely according to the estimated time. The role of
the Feeding Buffer is to protect the Critical Chain from
fluctuations of the feeding tasks. However, when the accumulative
fluctuations consume all the FB, further fluctuations will be
passed to the Critical Chain and will cause penetration of the
PB.
The number of days consumed from the buffer and, thus, the
number of extra days that the project may need after the original
planned completion date is the penetration. Penetration of the
planned buffer is presented as a percentage. The higher the level
of penetration, the less remaining protection the completion date
has. The Project Completion Buffer is the amount of protective time
that the project has. It is used to compensate for the
fluctuations. This is like a reservoir helping the project manager
secure the on-time delivery. The project manager needs to know, at
every given point in time, the amount of protection left. That is
achieved through knowing the buffer penetration. The level of
penetration determines the buffer status.
Managing projects the TOC way means manage through the
buffers!
The penetration of the buffer states the amount of days consumed
from the buffer. At the kick-off, the buffers are full (zero
consumption). As the project progresses, some tasks tend to take
longer than planned (since in the planning phase we took the 50/50
time estimation). Every deviation from the planned time is
compensated by time from the buffer. That consumes the buffer. The
level of consumption of the buffer is called the Buffer Status.
The level of consumption of the buffer signals to the manager
the risk to the on-time completion of the project. TOC uses the
color system to prompt management attention and action. Green means
the project is moving OK do not interfere. When it is Yellow it
signals get ready to take extra actions to ensure that the project
will be on time because the situation is becoming risky. When it is
on the RED managers must interfere and take
24
98 06
corrective actions to restore the level of protection the
project needs. As the buffer status is based on a predication of
the penetration to the buffer, it is possible to restore some of
the buffer. Any activity that causes the remainder of the Critical
Chain to be shorter than planned adds time to the project buffer
and, therefore, will reduce the level of penetration. This in
effect restores the buffer.
The color Black usually denotes that the project is already past
the due date. Most CCPM software packages do not use the black
buffer status.
Buffer status colors: As I wrote before the Buffer is split into
three zones green, yellow, and red. Traditionally each zone shall
be 1/3 of the buffer size, green being the first zone, followed by
yellow and red.
Figure 12: Traditional buffer penetration colors
However, there is a potential NBR is assigning the colors to
thirds of the buffers. There is a danger that the early tasks of
the project will consume a disproportional part of the Project
Buffer just because management will not recognize that there is a
significant delay until the project status color changes to yellow.
By then one third of the entire project buffer has been
consumed.
This is why the colors should be tilted. They should be assigned
according to the progress of the project. At the beginning of the
project most of the buffer is colored red even if the buffer is
still full, and a bit is colored yellow. The green is introduced as
the project progresses. This is done to have a better control over
the initial phase of the project. Most of the CCPM software
packages support this feature.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
25
Figure 13: Buffer status in relation to the progress of the
project
Buffer status is used for self-expediting, assigning priority of
resources, and for prompting management actions and decisions.
Buffer Penetration example: The following project plan contains
36 days of Critical Chain and 18 days of project buffer (PB).
Figure 14: Example of a project plan with buffers
Tasks 4 that was planned for 8 days reports that the task will
take 13 days. This causes a variation of additional 5 days in the
task duration. The extra time is given from the buffer. So buffer
penetration is 5 days.
Figure 15: Buffer penetration after reporting an expected delay
in task completion
26
98 06
The penetration is happening as if the tasks reporting the
variation push the other tasks and force them into the buffer. In
this case the buffer penetration is 5/18 and is equal to 28%.
However, as it is at the beginning of the project, the buffer
status is already RED.
The buffer status should be reported frequently (ideally daily).
The following chart presents the progression of the project through
the recorded buffer status and presents the health of the project
and the effectiveness of management interventions (when
needed).
Figure 16: Buffer penetration report for a given project.
Execution Control Injections:
The next 5 injections provide management with the ability to
effectively manage the execution.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
27
Figure 17: CCPM injection for Execution Control
Injection 5 Tasks are performed according to the status of their
corresponding buffers
What Due to the DELAYS management experience demands resources
to perform different tasks within the same project or on different
projects within the same period of time. Management has to make the
important decisions of allocating resources to tasks. Injection 5
provides a simple and practical mechanism. Every task that is about
to be performed is Colored with the same color as the Buffer it
belongs to. The color and the level of penetration give the tasks
priority in getting the needed resources. Priority: Black (past due
date) is higher in priority than red, red than yellow, yellow than
green. Internal priority within the same color is shown according
to the percentage of penetration into the Buffers.
Reporting task progress
In order to estimate the level of penetration into the buffers,
there In
is a need to get frequent (daily) report from the task
performers or their direct managers.
the reporting method used in conventional projects, people are
asked to report how much of the task have they completed. Usually,
the report is about the percentage of the task completed. CCPM
calls for a different progress report. It asks the task performer
to estimate the remaining duration. Once the work on a task has
started, daily reporting on the amount of time that is predicted to
be needed to complete the task is expected. At this point, the
28
98 06
performer of the task has a better idea about the real time
required. buffer penetration is calculated.
Based on this report, the
How
An example of the technical & managerial procedures for
injection 5:
a. By the end of the working day, the task performers or task
managers (a manager that is responsible for the performance of
several tasks on behalf of the resource manager) reports the
estimated remaining days for completing all of the tasks which are
in progress. b. At a given time, the CCPM software is run to update
the buffers and create the buffer status for all the open projects.
All the tasks in WIP, and the tasks waiting for a resource to be
performed, are marked with the relevant color as per their
corresponding buffers. They are sorted out by colors and within the
colors by the percentage of penetration. c. In the morning, the
task managers or the resource managers review the queues of tasks
for the resources and allocate tasks to available resources
according to the sequence suggested by the program. There should be
only one set of priorities according to the buffer penetration. d.
As a general rule, tasks should not be stopped while being
performed as this creates bad multi-tasking. Yet, in rare cases
when this is absolutely necessary for the sake of a recovery
action, management can decide to stop another task and move the
resource(s) to participate in recovery actions for a RED project.
For such rare cases a clear procedure at the right level of
management to make such decision should allow the interruption. e.
Most software packages can highlight tasks that have not reported
their progress. It is highly recommended that all levels of
management should firmly endorse and promote the need for daily
reporting.
Injection 6: Resource Availability is monitored in anticipation
of a new planned task
What The project manager keeps track of the progress of the
project. Special attention is paid to the Critical Chain. When a
task on the Critical Chain is about to be completed, the project
manager (or the task manager) is prompted to check the current
status of the resource needed for the next task and its level of
readiness. The same applies to tasks on feeders.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
29
How
This procedure can be called Resource wake-up call.
The new procedure signals to the project leader/task manager, or
to the project control room, that a resource will soon be needed
for the next task. If necessary, actions have to be taken to
guarantee their availability, especially for the tasks on the
Critical Chain. The wake-up call alerts the next resource on the
critical chain of the imminent date for the passing on of the task.
The estimated completion date is updated every day. The
procedure
has to calculate the time for the wake-up call by subtracting
the wake-up time from the estimated completion date. The objective
of the procedure is to ensure that the resource for the next task
is aware of the updated situation with the current task and the
anticipated time of starting the next task.
An analogy a scheduled flight. The airport of destination has a
general schedule for all flights and they prepare the necessary
resources to accommodate and service all the coming flights. The
specific flight has an ETA Estimated Time of Arrival.
Figure 18: An analogy planned arrival of a scheduled flight
The ETA is updated according to the progress of the flight, if
it is delayed in the take-off, or if it experiencing unexpected
weather conditions on the route. The destination airport is
continuously updated with the new estimated ETA (and so are the
passengers on board who can watch on their screens details from the
flight computer). It is expected that when the aeroplane lands
there will be a full team to service it receive it at the gate,
baggage people to offload the plane etc. All the relevant resources
are updated and getting themselves ready according to the last ETA
they get.
In the following example the Critical Chain is the sequence of
the following tasks: 4-W8 5-M8 3-M8 6-C10
A wake-up call is set to be 4 days in advance of the estimated
time the resource will be needed to perform the next task on the
Critical Chain.
30
98 06
Figure 19: An example of wake-up calls as per Injection 6
Please note that the procedures of Injection 6 may differ from
the current practice in the organization. Working with standard
software such as MS-Projects, the task performers or their bosses
tend to have a look ahead to the planned start date of the tasks.
As per the new reporting method of Injection 5, they can get daily
changes to the expected starting point of their task. Injection 6
ensures that they are getting an advance warning of when the next
task is expected to start. As we deal with a task on the Critical
Chain it is of utmost importance to minimize any delay to the chain
due to lack of availability of the resource.
If the importance of the Critical Chain to the project is
understood, it is more likely that the manager will use Injection 6
and ensure availability of the resource.
Injection 6 provides a major contribution to the opportunity of
gaining from a positive variation caused by early completion of the
some tasks on the Critical Chain. In the planning phase the time
estimation that was taken is 50/50. This means that sometimes it
can be that the task duration will actually be less than planned.
If the resource for the next task on the Critical Chain is
available to start immediately after the completion of the current
task then the early completion will reduce the existing buffer
penetration created by earlier tasks and thus will increase the
probability of completing the project on time.
Injection 7 Buffer Management (BM) for corrective actions
(expediting) is in place
What Based on the frequent reporting of the task managers (or
the task performers), the project manager knows the status of the
task completion with the most updated estimation of
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
31
the remaining duration for this task. Through the mechanics of
Injection 5, the new completion date is calculated and, with it,
the Project Completion Buffer penetration.
The amount of time that the new date of completing the Critical
Chain exceeds the initially planned date of its completion (without
the buffer) determines the amount of time penetration into the
project completion buffer.
When the penetration gets into the red, it indicates that
on-time completion of the whole project is at risk. When the
penetration is deep, there is a need to assess the risk and, if
necessary, take special actions beyond just the immediate
allocation of resources, to recover the loss of buffer.
It is expected that the key people will come with suggestions
for actions that will cut the time for the rest of the critical
chain. Not every penetration to the red demands immediate reaction.
It is recommended that a review meeting is conducted and project
managers report on the progress of the projects in Red. When the
situation is recognized as too risky, a resolution is made to take
special corrective actions. Please note that any structural change
to the project design and, especially, tampering with the Critical
Chain may cause disruption and instability. The tangible
deliverable of such actions is the reduction in buffer
penetration.
How
Taking recovery actions. After establishing the buffer status
through the buffer
penetration, the color system presents management with signals
that prompt management attention and action.
When the buffer status is Yellow, management is expected to
observe and investigate the situation and to consider actions,
ensure that the buffer is not further depleted, and even to regain
some of the buffer. Usually however, at this point no action should
be taken (why?).
When considering recovery actions we need the experience and
knowledge of key relevant people contributing ideas that can shrink
the elapsed time of tasks on the Critical Chain. Please note that
assigning resources is not a recovery action. This is a regular
action that is done nearly automatically as per Injection 5. Also,
there is no point in pushing the resources that perform the
existing task. Assisting the current tasks, especially those which
are in Red
32
98 06
status, is a regular responsibility of the task manager or
resource manager. Top management may be called upon to pave the way
by taking actions to assist the resources by removing obstacles
blocking their ability to perform the task.
Injection 7 is under the responsibility and the leadership of
the project managers. They are expected to come with ideas such as
off-loading to non critical resources, parallel processing, etc.
Any idea that will reduce the level of penetration is welcome. The
organization is expected to capture the collective knowledge and
ideas of corrective actions for the benefit of all future
projects.
Injection 8 Buffer penetration reasons are reviewed periodically
for POOGI Process of Ongoing Improvement
What There is a value in analysing the reasons for buffer
penetrations on an on-going base. Some of the delays and deviations
are specific to the project, but some are more permanent.
Dr. Deming stated that quality is not about finding the
defective part but about correcting the process that creates the
defective part. We want to employ the same concept in the project
environment.
Through the use of buffer management statistics, the management
can find areas that need an improvement initiative under the
heading of continuous improvement (POOGI). Even though that
improvement will not necessarily impact the performance of the
current project, the initiative will help the organization to
improve as a whole and create better grounds for the projects to
come.
Injection 8 covers: collecting the reasons for buffer
penetration from buffer management, systematically analyzing them,
and suggesting improvement initiatives to eliminate or reduce the
causes.
When a buffer penetration is identified, a check is made to know
which task is causing the penetration and the reason. Usually,
penetration happens when the task is waiting for some input or
resource, but it also can be that there are some unexpected
difficulties or new
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
33
demands. Even in such cases, we can identify that the task is
waiting for some missing input or decision in order to carry
on.
How
Buffer Management meetings. Frequent (weekly) meetings are held
to review the
statistics of the reasons for buffer penetrations and to act
upon them. As such, Injection 8 calls for technical procedures of
recording relevant data related to buffer penetration, timing for
recording and the causes. In recording the causes, it is important
to point out what is delaying the waiting task.
In preparation for the meeting, an analysis (histogram) of the
causes of the penetration should be produced and disseminated to
all participants of the meeting ahead of time.
The meeting should follow an agreed managerial process such as:
Buffer penetration statistics across several CCPM projects are
presented. A decision is made to initiate improvement in a certain
area. A review of the open improvement initiatives is
conducted.
It is likely that the analysis will reveal issues with human
behavior patterns and relationships between people and functions
within the organization. In such cases, it may be beneficial to use
the TOC TP (thinking processes) to address the conflicts and
develop and implement win/win solutions.
There are also potential dilemmas in which the resources may be
caught. The nature of the projects is that the resources are needed
only in certain tasks and not for the whole duration of the
project. They may be involved in other activities outside the
project e.g. day jobs or servicing other projects. They may be in a
dilemma about which job to do first. This can turn into a conflict
when the resource finds him/herself between the project manager and
the functional manager who put conflicting demands on the resources
time and attention. In these cases, there is a need to solve the
functional conflict as well as to upgrade the managerial procedures
of integrating projects into the regular work flow of the
organization.
Injection 9 Resources are monitored as potential CR Critical
Resources
34
98 06
What
It may be revealed Through the buffer management statistic that
some (few)
resources tend to lack capacity and cannot satisfy the work
content required within the planned time. The critical resource may
be needed in several tasks within the project and across several
projects. This may cause project managers to fight for securing the
resource for their project.
The purpose of Injection 9 is to identify a possible critical
resource and mange it in a way that the potential damage to the
project and to the entire system is reduced.
Please note that in reality there is a pressure to dedicate
resources to projects. This stems from the demand for resources to
be available when needed (as per the evolution of the original
plan). Nevertheless, resources can be used in more than one leg of
the project and can
become critical. Even though the Critical Chain mechanism
ensures that there are no resource conflicts and contentions in the
plan, the unfolding reality can cause resource contention, and
highly utilized resources can cause delays and penetrations to the
buffer.
Another potential candidate for critical resource is a resource
that participates in more than one project. Even though this
article deals with single projects, we cannot ignore the fact that
the reality of project environments calls for shared resources. The
resource contention can be also caused by the resource having
day-to-day responsibilities such as services to completed projects,
rework, support etc.
Injection 9 provides the natural bridge from single project to a
multi-project environment. We recommend some intermediate steps
that can provide a temporary solution until a proper move is done
to the TOC solution for multi-project environment.
The major bridge to multi-project environment is the directive
to stop bad multi-tasking. The project manager can adopt this
directive in a single project to minimize and even stop any jump of
a resource from one unfinished task to another. When the resource
participates in more than one project, it is more difficult (if not
impossible) for the project manager to prevent bad multi tasking.
Usually, it is the resource manager who is under immense pressure
to shift the resources from one project to another before even
completing the open tasks.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
35
Bad multi-tasking happens when a task is interrupted before
completion and the resource is moved to another task. In the
following example the same resource is planned to perform three
different tasks for projects A, B and C. Interruptions occur. The
interruptions occur because the project manager of B is putting a
lot of pressure on the resource manager to start performing task B.
Yielding to the pressure, the resource manager instructs the
resource to move from task A to task B (before completing A). The
same situation can happen when the project manager of C pressures
the resource managers to perform his task C. The resource is moved
to perform C. The next step is that the project manager of A raises
his voice and gets the resource to continue and complete task A.
This is known as the system of the one who shouts louder gets the
resource.
When the resource after some time returns to perform the
interrupted task, some amount of time is required to get back into
the state and the thinking needed for performing the task. Thus,
the overall time for every task grows dramatically, and every
project suffers from the delays. In the example, the total duration
of every task is more than doubled. This means that no real gain
was achieved by the multi-tasking.
Figure 20: An example of bad multi-tasking
Injection 9 is under the ownership and the responsibility of top
management. The decision to release projects is done by top
management. Many times top management decides to start more
projects while using the existing resources. This is under the
assumptions that not all the resources are busy all the time and
that there is some excess capacity to perform more projects.
However, some of the shared resources may not be able to cope with
the increased load and will be subject to the fight of project
managers to secure the resources to perform their projects. This
leads to delays in several projects due to non-availability of
resources.
36
98 06
Top management has a critical role in setting the number of open
projects, their priorities, and in addressing shared critical
resources.They should have a snapshot view of the status of all the
open projects. This can be presented on a project portfolio status
like the one in the following figure. Every dot on the graph
presents the status of a project. It shows the consumption of the
project buffer versus the progress in the completion of the
critical chain.
Figure 21: A portfolio status diagram
Conclusion of Part 1
By now we have covered in details all the injections of the CCPM
solution for managing a single project. Project managers who want
to improve their ability to manage projects, to increase the
probability of completing projects on time within budget and to the
original specifications, should consider implementing these
injections in their reality. They should make their own experiments
and prove to themselves that the injections do produce the expected
results. Injections 2-4 cover the planning processes and injections
5-9 cover the suggested way of managing the execution of the
project plan.
The most important is Injection 1 having the right mindset. This
is a reflection of the determination to be a professional project
manager. It lays the foundation for career progression by becoming
a reliable project manager who demonstrates the commitment to
deliver promises. The CCPM provides managers with the way to
achieve that.
The next part of this article is aimed at the readers who want
to know about the TOC methodology that was used to capture and
organize the relevant knowledge of CCPM.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
37
3.
Part 2
THE U SHAPE STRUCTURING THE TOC KNOWLEDGE AND DEVELOPING TOC
LOGISTICAL APPLICATIONS
CCPM emerged as an application of TOC for managing projects. It
was developed as a solution to address and manage the constraint of
the system in project environment. The constraint of the single
project is TIME. It is the elapsed time from starting the project
until it is finished and has delivered the results as promised, the
specifications.
After the CCPM solution was developed, it became apparent that
there was a need to organize the knowledge. The purpose of the
organizer is to enable capturing the knowledge, retrieving it for
learning and communicating, providing a platform for continuous
upgrading, and capturing further expansion in understanding
enhancing assistance for the practicalities of implementing the
solution.
TOC has a base methodology known as the thinking processes. The
base methodology provides tools to capture the analysis of the
problem, the development of the solution and the construction of
the practical implementation plan.
The U-shape is the organizer that provides the platform for the
above requirements. It connects all the elements of the solution.
CCPM is a solution. What makes it powerful is the amount and
magnitude of the problems that it solves in the area of managing
projects.
The U-shape helps management to deal with each of the four
continuous improvement questions: What to change? What is the core
problem? What to change to? What is the simple and practical
solution? How to cause the change? How to engage the proper people
and secure their support? How to propel continuous improvement?
38
98 06
The collection of the answers to the above questions creates the
knowledge base for the TOC solution. This is recorded on the
U-shape. Once the knowledge is recorded it provides direct access
for any person who wants to more fully know any TOC solution.
Part 1 of this article presented the CCPM solution. The solution
includes 9 injections. Each injection has been covered in detail to
convey the knowledge of what it is, how it functions and how to
implement it. The U-shape captures the logic of how the solution
was constructed and how the collection of the injections will lead,
once implemented, to the objective of completing projects on time,
within budget and to the agreed specifications.
In this part,
the structure of the U-shape will be described and the way that
all the relevant
data and knowledge of the TOC solution are interconnected and
related to each other in a systematic and logical way.
The U-shape presents the TOC methodology. It has two major uses:
i. To capture the knowledge of a developed TOC solution (such as
CCPM and other logistical TOC solutions) ii. To provide the
platform for developing solutions for improving the performance of
systems. The U-shape provides the platform for the whole design and
development of the solution for the problems leading to the
improved performance.
The name U-shape was given to reflect the graphical
representation of the thinking processes on a comprehensive logical
diagram.
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
39
Figure 22: The general structure of the U-shape
The left side of the U-shape is the Current Reality. It follows
the structure of the CRT (the Current Reality Tree). The bottom of
the tree reflects the core problem, the middle of the tree the
major problems the UDEs (Undesirable Effects) and their logical
connections, and on the top of the tree the negative impact that
the UDEs have on the overall performance of the system at the
top.
The right side is the Future Reality. It follows the structure
of the FRT (Future Reality Tree). At the bottom there is the
direction of the solution, in the middle the injections and the
supporting logic that connects them to the desired effects leading
to the improved performance.
The central part of the U is the connection between the two
sides of the shape. This is the Pivot. It describes the core of the
change. It is like changing the course of a huge ship. It explains
the different mindset that is about to be employed to the extent
that it will drive the new desired reality.
We strongly believe that the structure of the U-shape also can
be used to explain other managerial approaches that provide answers
to continuous improvement questions. What will be unique to every
managerial approach is the recognition of the core problem, the
pivot of the approach, and the direction of the solution.
The TOC pivot provides the suggested TOC Change. It comes under
the heading of "Management the TOC Way".
What is unique about Managing the TOC Way?
The TOC Way is based on the realization that the performance of
every system is governed by a very few of its constraints. The
constraint blocks the system from achieving higher performance
relative to its goal and at the same time provides the manager with
the direction to grow ("lift") the system and to improve its
performance. The constraints are the factors or elements that
determine how much the system can achieve.
40
98 06
TOC claims that every system has very few constraints and they
are the key for managing it. The term constraint is so significant
in TOC that it gives its name to the entire approach.
Figure 23: The constraint and its impact of the performance of
the system
Once managers identify the constraints, they can manage their
systems through those constraints. There are few types of
constraints: Capacity, Lead-time and Market (customer orders).
These constraints are 'things' that are in shortage in the current
reality. Capacity constraint states that there is not enough
capacity of the specific resource in order to fulfill all the
demand that is imposed on it. Lead-time constraint means that the
time to complete a full project is too long versus the competitors
or versus the real needs of the market. Market constraint means not
enough customers orders. When managers realize the critical impact
of the constraint on the performance of their system, it has a
profound impact on their mode of management. After identifying what
the constraint is, managers should make a conscious effort to
squeeze the most out of the constraints while not wasting them and,
thereafter, to bring more to elevate the constraint. These steps
are knows as the five steps of focusing for managing through the
constraints.
The project as a stand-alone system has one major constraint
time to completion. Only when the project is completed and the
agreed specifications have been delivered does the project
generates value. The shorter the project duration, the quicker the
benefits arrive. Therefore, it is extremely critical to complete
the project on time (without compromising on budget and
specifications).
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
41
For a company that sells projects; engineering, IT, construction
etc. , reliability can create a decisive competitive edge when all
the other providers hardly deliver to the agreed promises. Hence,
CCPM becomes a major way to exploit the market constraint and
elevating it.
The knowledge of the TOC solution is captured on the U-shape by
recording the problem on the left side and the detailed solution on
the right side.
What to change What is the problem?
We know that systems can perform better. This is the major drive
guiding managers on continuous improvement. Managers also
experience sporadic situations in which their systems perform
better; but they find it difficult to repeat these experiences.
These experiences set higher level of performances that managers
strive to achieve.
The starting point is the performance of the system. The system
was built for a purpose. The performance measurements have been
developed in order to measure how well the system performs versus
its objectives. The expectations are that systems continuously
improve their performances.
When a practitioner is called upon to improve a system, it is
because the performance measurements are "low" according to the
owners or managers views. There is no criticism of the efforts and
achievements up to this point. The call for professional assistance
is an outcome of a strong conviction that the system can do
better.
The difference between the level at which the system can perform
and the current level of performance is the GAP. Even though gaps
may cause frustration to the managers of the system they also
provide the impetus to strive for improvements. Once we recognize
that there are gaps we can ask the question, why do they exist,
what prevents us from closing the gaps?
The reasons that are given for the existence of the gaps are
called Undesirable Effects (UDEs in the TOC terminology). These are
facets of reality that are undesirable as they cause the system to
perform at a lower level. The UDEs are like symptoms in the medical
analogy. They
42
98 06
indicate that the system is not well. The practitioner conducts
an investigation and, through cause and effect logic, reveals the
Core problem. This is the reason for the existence of several gaps
and UDEs. This analysis is called CRT (Current Reality Tree), and
appears on the U-shape as a gap analysis or diagram connecting the
UDEs.
The core problem can be verbalized in three ways: An erroneous
assumption that is used extensively by the managers of the system
in managerial decision making A conflict between two types of
conflicting tactics A core cloud presenting the core conflict The
left side of the U-shape deals with the question, "What to Change?"
It shows the gaps in the current level of performance measurements,
the undesirable effects (UDEs), the gap analysis through the
Current Reality logical analysis (CRT) and the Core Problem.
U-Shape What to change?Low Performance Measurements UDE UDE UDE
UDE
UDE UDE
D B A
D D C
Figure 24: The left side of the U-shape What to change?
The TOC Solution
As stated above, the Pivot describes the essence of the change
(moving to managing systems
CCPM-The TOC solution for improving the management of single
projects and the use of the U shape for structuring TOC logistical
applications
43
the TOC way). As managers of a system we are interested to know
the details of the solution suggested by TOC, and the logic
explaining the reasons why they are going to work and provide
significant results.
The solution starts with the direction of the solution for the
system understudy. We can look on every U-shape as a system on its
own. If the pivot is managing the TOC way, then the direction of
the solution is Managing the (specific) system the TOC Way. In the
direction of the solution we choose the dominant constraint for the
system and we supply a new method, approach or paradigm how to
manage this co