Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com Rapid, Collaborative Planning for Global Teams through Project Design Bryan R. Moser [email protected] NASA Challenge 2009 February 24-25, 2009 Slide 1
Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Rapid, Collaborative Planning for Global Teams
through Project Design
Bryan R. [email protected]
NASA Challenge 2009
February 24-25, 2009
Slide 1
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Outline 1. The Challenge of Global Projects
2. Project Design:Rapid, Accurate, & Shared Plans including Forecast of Coordination
3. Case Study: Global Product Development
4. Conclusion
Slide 2
Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
1. The Challenge of Global Projects
NASA Challenge 2009
Slide 3
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Challenges of Global Projects
Teams from different time zones, work cultures, costs, and abilities.
Subsystems and services to be integrated in an overall solution, yet the “central” team does not have complete control
Costs and risks from coordination, communication, re‐work, and quality are 40% or greater of real effort
Expected Results difficult to predict with significantly greater consequences if ignored
Slide 4
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Work In 1909:
An Industrial Age
Ways of WorkingStandard Work Narrow specialtiesExpert managementAutomated resources
Slide 5
Communication, Uncertainty, Communication, Uncertainty, & Adaptive Behavior & Adaptive Behavior
are Avoidedare Avoided
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Century old assumptions strongly
embedded
False precision of detail becomes substitute for awareness &
adaptive learning
Slide 6
The Gantt Chart Circa 1914
Not included in century old methods:Complex Dependence amongst activitiesCommunication & MeetingsDecisions, Exceptions, and Re-work Travel, Time Zones, and WorkdaysReasons for Waiting related to others
The Missing Half of Plans is
CoordinationCoordination
Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
2. Project Design:Rapid, Accurate, & Shared Plans
including Forecast of Coordination
NASA Challenge 2009
Slide 7
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Planning and Designing Are Very Different
Slide 8
PlanVerb. To work out in
some detail how something is to be done or
organized.
Planning may be sufficient for routine, repeatable projects with limited uncertainty
DESIGN is essential to optimize performance and manage risk in enterprise initiatives
DesignDesignVerb. To create the form or structure of something in a
skillful or artistic way.
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
BusinessBusinessResultResultTypicalTypical
Project Design:
Multiple Forecasts are prototype
“crashes” of real project
Slide 9
Cost Cost (M$)(M$)
3818 24 28 32 36
12
15
24
21
18
BusinessBusinessTargetTarget
Hoped ForHoped For
PrePre--LaunchLaunchForecastsForecasts
Likely ResultLikely Resultwith Aswith As--Is BehaviorIs Behavior
Optimized Optimized PlanPlan
Feasible & FocusedFeasible & Focusedfor Targeted Scopefor Targeted Scope
Option 1Option 1
TradeTrade--off off for timefor time
Option 2Option 2
TradeTrade--off off for costfor cost
Duration (months)Duration (months)
1. Project Model& Simulation
2. Design Iteration& Optimization
3. Trade-Off Dialogue on Feasible Plans
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Scope:Locations,
Teams (OBS), Product (PBS),
and Phases (WBS)
Slide 10
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Architecture:Complex
dependence (concurrent &
mutual )
Slide 11
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Real‐time Collaborative Modeling
In different languages
& points of view
Slide 12
SIMULATORUnique insight from predictive analytics
• Analyzes coordination effort & costs
• Real-world behavior & uncertainty
• Constraints of team distribution
• Detailed output from hi-level input
Project DesignDESIGNER
Visual models to capture project & complexity
• Top-down & linked to strategy
• Product, work, & teams
• Global roles & priorities
• Concurrent dependencies
Smart Dialogue & Team Collaboration
FORECASTReview of realistic plans, scenarios & options
•Product & phase schedules
•Team progress, efforts, costs
•Concurrency, wait, & re-work
• opportunities & riskSlide 13
Global Project Design ©2009
www.gpdesign.com
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Simulation generates
forecasts rapidly
Includes coordination
effort, costs and schedule impact
Slide 14
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Teams examine Forecasts from
multiple viewpoints: WBS & PBS
Slide 15
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Coordination is real effort.
Impact on schedule clearly
visible.
Slide 16
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Progress Forecasts
Slide 17Percent of Effort
Shown with range of standard deviation and high/low of forecasts
Percent of EffortPercent of EffortShown with range of standard Shown with range of standard
deviation and high/low of forecastsdeviation and high/low of forecasts
Progress in Real World Units,
not just Spending & Percent
Progress in Progress in Real World Units, Real World Units,
not just not just Spending & PercentSpending & Percent
DrawingsDrawings
DocumentsDocuments
ModulesModules
TestsTests
PartsParts
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Frequent Iterations& What If Scenarios
50 or more plans for a complex project in days
Slide 18
Model #Raw FTE
hrs Forecast Effort hrsWait %
Coord %
Go‐Livedate
Cost$ Description Realistic?
114 4704 6891 8% 11% 12/24/07 258,692$ Added meeting to first modeling approach no
131 4704 6838 7% 23% 12/12/07 257,368$ Execute Commit not hard gateway no
138 4600 5735 1% 9% 02/19/08 287,472$ simple assignments no mutual deps no
139 4600 6450 9% 9% 02/14/08 325,420$ simple assignments & 1 mutual dep somewhat
143 4600 10157 35% 8% 02/23/08 427,561$ added 3 mutual deps somewhat
144 4600 9082 23% 11% 01/05/08 360,000$ Some blended assignments almost
147 4600 7439 12% 18% 12/24/07 293,500$ Blended assignments & PMs as Decide almost (but cost)
148 4600 7753 14% 15% 12/20/07 264,988$ All Arcana efforts priced at 0 yes
153 4600 6748 8% 16% 12/11/07 246,496$ From 4 to 5 IT developers in SF yes
154 4600 7067 15% 13% 12/06/07 265,325$ From 3 to 4 AST Developers yes
Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Estimation of Coordination Activity
How can we estimate coordination?
Slide 19
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Dependence an architectural
measure of need
Slide 20
DependenceDependence
Team 1Team 1 Team 2Team 2
What does my team need in the progress & results from others?
DEMANDfor coordination
Can we predict the amount of coordination effort required to effectively complete our direct work?
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
E A C D B G F
E X
A X X
C X X X X
D X X
B X X X
G X X X X
F X X X
Dependence
Design Structure Matrix (DSM)
Slide 21
A B C Level of Dependence
A A • • • Small
B • B • Medium
C • • C • Large
Level of DependenceTo Partition Tightly Coupled Tasks
McCord, Eppinger, Aug 1993
A B C
A 4 .2
B .4 7 .5
C .3 .1 6
Time Duration & ProbabilityTo Predict Total DurationWork Transformation Matrix
Smith, Eppinger, Apr 1994
A B C
A X X
B X
C X X X
Task Dependency in Matrix FormGoal is to sequence and partitionSome tasks are too tightly linked
D. Steward, 1981
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Aircraft Global Development
Project
4 major subsystems with 13 Key activities and Dependence
Slide 22
Part6 Part1 Part16 Part5spec
IF
mfg
rvw
IF
mfg
rvw
IF
mfg
rvw
IF
mfg
rvw
specPart6 IF fs 6ri 5ri fsPart6 mfg co 3r time-basedPart6 rvw co (finish to start)Part1 IF fs 2r 2r coPart1 mfg 3r co continuous flow Part1 rvw co (parallel)Part16 IF fs 4iPart16 mfg co otherPart16 rvw co (information...)Part5 IF fsPart5 mfg 4ri 1ri 5ri 5r coPart5 rvw co
release co co co co
1ri early some results&info2r early most results 5r parallel half results3r early all results 5ri parallel half info & results4i early/para, some info 6ri late most info & results4ri early/para some results&info
downstream
activity
upstream activity
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Sum of Remaining Activity_From
Activity_To Electronic Design
Motor design
Signal Design
A &Pkg_Design
Shell Design
Electronics Proto
Motor Proto
Shell Proto
Signal Proto
Test & Ship
Electronic Design 288
Motor Design 168
Signal Design 93
A &Pkg_Design 968
Shell Design 288
Electronics Proto 168
Motor Proto 800
Shell Proto 320
Signal Proto 288 288
Test & Ship 288 168 128 93 168 380
Sum of Remaining Team_From
Team_To GAC Design
T1 Supplier
T2 Plastics_Team
T2 Electronics
T2 Signal Engineers
T2 Motor
GAC Design 456
T1 Supplier 968 668 93 168 168 128
T2 Plastics_Team 320
T2 Electronics 549
T2 Signal Engineers 576
T2 Motor 800
For coordination Team structure
matters
Architecture determines if dependence
stretches across teams
23
Dependencies by Activity (DSM) mapped to Dependence across Teams
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Why dependence is not enough
Coordination is interaction across the architecture to allow downstream effective independence.
Teams that aren’t dependent have no need to coordinate.
Even if demanded, coordination is not guaranteed to occur.
Coordination requires attention, priority, & capacity .
Interaction, communication, meetings, learning, and response consume TIME AND BUDGET.
Slide 24
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Coordination Distance is the Supply Side
Slide 25
DistanceDistanceDependenceDependence
Team 1Team 1 Team 2Team 2
What does my team need in the progress & results from others?
What is my team’s ability to coordinate with others?
DEMANDfor coordination
SUPPLYof coordination
Can we predict the amount of coordination effort required to effectively complete our direct work?
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Team_Name GAC Design
T1 Supplier
T2 Plastics_Team
T2 Electronics
T2 Signal Engineers
T2 Motor
GAC Design 0.5 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.3
T1 Supplier 1.1 0.2 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.5
T2 Plastics_Team 1.9 1.8 0.3 1.7 2 1.7
T2 Electronics 1.4 1.3 1.7 0.1 1.2 1.4
T2 Signal Engineers 1.2 1.1 2 1.2 0 1.5
T2 Motor 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 0.2
Coordination Distance is a Measure of
Team To Team Coordination
Ability
26
0.0: Within small teams with shared tacit knowledge, distance approaches “0”
1.0: Between teams with average shared work background, common native language, and co-location, distance is a nominal “1”
Coordination Distance is both a macro-level and micro-level measure
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Global Factors which influence Coordination Distance
Slide 27
Communication efficiencySome parties working in 2nd languageLess shared work backgroundTeam Size & CapacityPriority of attention to interaction vs. direct work
Distribution & time zonesOverlap of work hoursLatency/ reaction to issuesTravels costs and time
Exception handling behaviorLocal work culture & assumptions differ, distractQuality priorities, re-work capacity and attentionHigh chance of misreading indicators
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Sum of Remaining Team_From
Team_To GAC Design
T1 Supplier
T2 Plastics_Team
T2 Electronics
T2 Signal Engineers
T2 Motor
GAC Design 456
T1 Supplier 968 668 93 168 168 128
T2 Plastics_Team 320
T2 Electronics 549
T2 Signal Engineers 576
T2 Motor 800
Team_Name GAC Design
T1 Supplier
T2 Plastics_Team
T2 Electronics
T2 Signal Engineers
T2 Motor
GAC Design 0.5 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.3
T1 Supplier 1.1 0.2 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.5
T2 Plastics_Team 1.9 1.8 0.3 1.7 2 1.7
T2 Electronics 1.4 1.3 1.7 0.1 1.2 1.4
T2 Signal Engineers 1.2 1.1 2 1.2 0 1.5
T2 Motor 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 0.2
Team 1Team 1 Team 2Team 2
Coordination Coordination ActivityActivity
Coordination = Dependence X
Distance
28(Moser 1997)
Coordination Dependency Matrix Coordination Distance Matrix
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Sum of Coordination Cost %
GAC Design
T1 Supplier
T2 Plastics_Team
T2 Electronics
T2 Signal Engineers
T2 Motor
GAC Design 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
T1 Supplier 23% 3% 4% 5% 4% 4%
T2 Plastics_Team 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
T2 Electronics 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
T2 Signal Engineers 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0%
T2 Motor 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Coordination Activity across
Teams
29
Team to team coordination activity
Changes phase to phase
Sum of Coordination Cost % Phase_From Team_From1. Design Phase
2. Prototype Phase
3. Assembly Phase
Phase_To Team_To GAC Design
T1 Supplier
T2 Electronics
T2 Plastics_Team
T2 Electronics
T2 Signal Engineers
T2 Motor
T1 Supplier
1. Design Phase
GAC Design 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
T1 Supplier 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
T2 Electronics 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2. Prototype Phase T2 Plastics_Team 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
T2 Signal Engineers 0% 0% 8% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0%
T2 Motor 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
T2 Electronics 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
3. Assembly Phase T1 Supplier 0% 1% 0% 4% 5% 4% 4% 2%
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Coordination Distance
Summary
If work is complex, teams large, and dependence stretches across distant teams, coordination activity tends to increase
Simulator handles dependence and distance interaction on a micro, transactional level.
Distances at a transactional level create local direct costs and increased duration
The architecture determines if local coordination causes systemic and propagating impacts
Systemically, what happens if coordination activity is not budgeted and prioritized?
Slide 30
Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
3. Case Study:Product Development across 4 Global Regions
Retrospective Analysis
Slide 31
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Case Description New product family of complex machinery for multiple regional markets
Approximately 150,000 hrs of effort for design & development. 5 Gateways.
85% of scope was visible before G2. 54% from original product family scope
31% for options, not addressed until after G2.
15% from scope increase at G3.
32
Gateways
G0 – start G1 – conceptG2 – design G3 – engineerG4 – manufactureG5 – release Original Scope
Original Scope & Options
Original Scope, Options, & Scope Increase
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Scenarios: Original, Options, & Scope Increase
A retrospective analysis: starting condition data used to ask
“What could we have known ahead of time?”
Three Scenarios were modeled; each simulated using
critical path (CPM) & global factors (GPD) settings.
CPM refers to the Critical Path Method for scheduling as
used in traditional project tools. CPM ignores
communication, time zones, mutual dependence, re‐work,
and other global factors.
GPD refers to analysis by GPD's TeamPort which
incorporates communication, complex concurrency, re‐
work, time‐zones and other factors.
33
Original Scope
Original Scope & Options
Original Scope, Options, & Scope Increase
Original Scope
Original Scope & Options
Original Scope, Options, & Scope Increase
Comparison of Forecasts: Schedule Gateways
Gateways
G0 – start G1 – conceptG2 – design G3 – engineerG4 – manufactureG5 – release
Slide 34Global Project Design ©
2009www.gpdesign.com NASA Challenge 2009
Comparison of Forecasts: Cost x 4th Gateway
35
@ G1
@ G2
@ G3
@ G4
Actual
PM PM forecasts by project team at each Gate during project.
CPMCPM forecasts (critical path) ignore coordination, concurrency, and re-work realities.
GPDGPD forecasts consider coordination, concurrency, re-work, time-zones and other global project realities
CPMCPM & GPDGPD forecasts generated by TeamPort
PMPM
CPMCPM
GPD GPD
Gateways
G0 – start G1 – conceptG2 – design G3 – engineerG4 – manufacture
Original Scope
Original Scope & Options
Original Scope, Options, & Scope Increase
Global Project Design ©2009
www.gpdesign.com
Global Project Design © 2009 www.gpdesign.com
Conclusion
Teams in global projects can succeed through collaborative design of plans, simulating progress including coordination, exposing
assumptions, and generating situational awareness.
Slide 36
Global Project Design © 2009 NASA Challenge 2009 www.gpdesign.com
The Results of Project Design
Slide 37
Project design generates a plan. And options. The plan represents teams’ consensus of role, feasibility, optimality, and coordination approach.
The plan is a social instrument; a dialogue amongst teams, not just a control instrument. Teams interact from their own point of view.
Failure is visual before starting; allows team leaders to re-think how to participate. Architecture and complex dependence emphasized.
The exercise exposes ideological assumptions and prevents wishful thinking. Teams see sensitivity of total project results to their own actions.
Situational awareness and performance emerge as teams understand, commit, rehearse, and adapt ongoing with the plan.