Organization Scope . Actors includes - Integrated ...web.stanford.edu/~kunz/Chalmers/Chalmers15/ICEOverview.pdf · Accepted by Genentech ... • Integrated Concurrent Engineering

Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering

Integrated Concurrent Engineering

John Kunz

Rate

Baseline

($K) Change

Year-1

(K$)

Revenue 100,000 2% 102,000

Cost of contracted work 85% 85,000 -2.0% 84,660

Cost of self-performed work 10% 10,000 2.0% 12,240

Gross Margin 5,000 5,100

Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,040

IT investment 70

Amortized costs of IT/yr 33% 23

Net income 3,000 3,037

Time to payback (years) 1.9

Net Income change (%) 1.2

*05-07-01

Finish

Final Program

Confirmation with

Pharmacology

Final Program

confirmation with LAR

KPFF

SRG Lab Task 37 Task 44 Project Mgt AEI Core Task 41 Task26 H Block Crew Task 23SRG / AEI

TechnicalAEI Core and

SRG LabHDCCO Costing

SRG

TechnicalKPFF

AEI Core

and TechHDCCO Core

Code Rev

ConsultantSolvent Tarter

H Block Crew

& Tech

SRG

Landscape

Tele Data

DesignCode Rev

Furniture

37.

*Reprogram

B#15 Shafts

34. *Finalize

Pharmacology

Program

33. *Finalize

LAR Program

32. *Finalize

Bio-Organic

Chemistry

Program

35. *Finalize

Protein Chemistry

Program 20. *Determine Scope of

package D including vivarium

changes

45. *Complete all

Basement/LAR Drawings

41. *Reprogram

bookends B#13 and

B#15

36. *Analyze

structural impacts

12. *Complete UG

utiliites

25. *Do Central Plant

design changes

19. *Determine vertical

utilities

22. *Complete catwalk drawings

52. Finalize landscape

26. *Finalize B#13 and

B#15

Exiting/architecural H

occupancy concept

*Lab and

vivarium

Programming

Complete

27. *Finalize B#13,

15 Shaft Size &

MEP Room

Locations

31.* AEI &

SRG

Determine

Design $/Time

Impact of

Change

23. *Reprogram

B#13 and B#15

Exterior Architecture

Bookend

Programming

Accepted by Genentech

Notice to proceed on

structural changes

Architect

program/MEP

oncepts

Established

By Design

Team

29. *Document

lab plan

1. *Redesign main MEP

distribution systems

SRG Management AEI Management

Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

5. *Finalize lab & Equipment

plans

Task 29

Task 28

30. *Approve

Change to

Design

Contract

21. *Prepare Plan Views for

Review of Concept w/City

39. *Finalize MEP

distribution and

section

Task4 Task22

Review 80%

documents

48. *Develop exiting

plan

49. Develop

reflected ceiling

plan

Turnover

reflected

ceiling plan to

AEI

Detailed Design 80 PC

Complete

3. Complete Tele Data Design

42. *Develop

Execution

Strategy

44. *Complete

B#14 Officing

Planning

18. *Detailed Lab

Program

Documentation

47. *Develop lab

DD plan

28. *Determine

segregation of lab

and tech space

G accept lab

equipment matrix

*Package B structural

modifications (CCD3A)

13. *Code Consultants

Review Concept for final

city Presentation

14. *HDCCO update Estimate of cost

of Program

Review skin changes w/db team

Lab Planning Program

Meetings with

Pharmacology

Lab planning Program Meeting with Protein

Chemistry

BMS Controls Meetings

(Weekly)

Lab Planning Program meeting with Bio

Organic 80% Drawing Review

Tele Data Coordination MeetingsSteel Detailing

Meetings

Genentech 80% Detailed Design

Review

Final Program

Confirmation with Officing

Weekly

Coordination

Meeting


Meetings with Directors

50. Designate size, location of

13 MEP, teledata rooms

54. KPFF design

stairs for 13/1438. *SRG

Reprogram 13/14

interface, exiting,

stairs

43. *Changes in Steel

Forwarded to Steel

Detailers

46. *RA Furnture

Concept Complete

MEP, Teledata room design

*Design Budget &

Schedule for Changes

Approved

*Notice to proceed

with detailed design

24. *Complete B13,4 H

block occupancy

requirements on MEP

systems

17. *Risick

reprogram solvent

distribution and waste

Issue 80%

MEP CDs

(20) Incorporate

80% MEP review

comments

(19) Genentech review

80% drawings

53. Incorporate

comments, complete

Architectural detail

2. Initial redesign MEP branch

lateral distribution

G accept

13/14

Interface

*City Accept

exiting

*Package C

skin

modifications

55. KPFF design

stairs for 15/14

40. *SRG

Reprogram 15/14

interface, exiting,

stairs

B13 MEP HVAC,

conduit, piping mains

completed

MEP 80% Review

comments

incorporated

Package D and UG

addendum issued:

underground utilities,

vivarium catwalk

10. Draft Alternate means

15. Jeff reprogram HMIS

(3) *AEI design MEP

HVAC, Conduit &

piping mains B13

16. *HDCCO Determine

Schedule Impact

City Approval of

Alternate Means

for Program

8. Review Alternate

Means w/impact on LEL

and LFFH

(21-4) Finalize MEP Details,

update specs and p&ID's

(8) *Revise

MEP loads, MEP

Equipment

schedules

finalized

(13,15,16) MEP specs, P&ID's,

control sequences

Work Process

Meetings

(6) Coord B13 MEP

floor section

4. complete all Interior Architcture

*Cal OSHA Recommend

Determination of LFFH

51. Designate size, location

of 14 MEP, teledata rooms G accept

15/14

Interface

*Accept project

scope:budget

by Genentech

*City Approval of

H Concept

*Exterior

Programming


*Turnover lab and

vivarium DD plan

to AEI

Object AttributeRequirement

Relationship Requirement

Predicte

d value

Observed

value -2 -1 0 1 2

Product

Product Scope

Product Scope . Building Spaces includes -

Project Goals

Project Goal . Capacity (people) >= 60 - ?o

Project Goal . Cost (M$) = 70 - ?o

Building

Goal . Net Energy Use (K-

BTU/ft2) <= 250 - ?o

Building

Goal . Quality conformance

(%) >= 12 - ?o

Organization Scope

Organization Scope . Actors includes - -

Organization Goals

Organization Goal . Predicted . Cost (K$) - <= - ?o

Organization

Goal . Observed . Response

Latency (days) 3 <= - ?o

Organization

Goal . Predicted . Peak

Backlog (days) 3 <= - ?o

Organization

Goal . Predicted . rework

(FTE-days) - <= - ?o

Process

Process Goals

Process Goal . Peak Quality Risk < 0.50 - -

Process

Goal . Schedule Growth

(months) < - ?o

Process Goal . Completion Date <= 1/1/09 - ?o

Process Task . Action: Object

Process Task . Design: Actor Actor that designs

Process Task . Predict: Actor Actor that predicts

Process Task . Assess: Actor Actor that assesses

Process Task . Build: Actor Actor that builds

Function Product Behavior

Organization

Qualitative Threshhold values

The big ideas: Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) is a social

method, helped by technology, to create and evaluate multi-

discipline, multi-stakeholder VDC models extremely rapidly.

Multiple factors together enable its success.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/CIFE/images/VDC2.mov




Learning goals for Week-2

• Learn basic theory and practice of ICE, Metrics, TEI

• Review submissions from W-1 and clarify +/∆ practices

• Plan class project

Chalmers Integrated Product, Organization and Process (c) 2015

2



Reflections

• Interesting that there is so much software to use for

management.

• Lots of things are automated and automation works well.

Project management seems underserved and has

potential, so it is interesting

• I like that there is still a need for the human and

judgement.

• Surprising tat this is not used so much, but it seems easy

and fast to use and easy to learn

• It is interesting to reflect on how much time to plan vs.

start early. Is there a golden rule to follow?


3



Details for Week-2

• Dinner at my home this Tuesday

• Due date for homework: Sundays


4


Center for Integrated Facility EngineeringChalmers Integrated Product, Organization and Process (c) 2015

5

Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) Background

Given

• Objective = Rapid, effective design

“extreme collaboration” (~1 week)

• Excellent POP software

• Collocated team

• iRoom

• Good generic POP model

• SD (DD) phase focus

Performance change

XC

Good

traditio

nal

Latency

(secs)0

20000

40000

60000

Latency (secs)

Duration (days)

XC

Good traditional

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Duration



6

The big ideas of ICE

• Exceptional performance, e.g., Team-X at NASA-JPL

• It works because it achieves exceptionally short

information latency and short task durations, reliably

• Multiple factors enable ICE to work

http://www.stanford.edu/~kunz/AVIs/VDC2.mov




7

Integrated Concurrent Engineering at JPL (ICE)

Properties

• Collocated Organization (Closed Knowledge Network)

• Excellent Technical Infrastructure

• Formal Objective Metrics

• Informal Process and Culture

Photo thanks to JPL



8

Integrated Concurrent Engineering at CIFE

Integrated Collaborative Engineering (ICE) at CIFE

• Collocated Organization (Closed Knowledge Network)

• Excellent Technical Infrastructure

• Formal Objective Metrics

• Informal Process and Culture





10

Tasks of a typical ICE session

1. Plan: Specify project intent, or functional goals and objectives –

wants:

– Broad goals for content of models at specified LOD

– Specific measured performance objectives

– Specific deliverables and commitments by specific teams and

individuals

2. Do: Model project design, or “forms”:

– in response to goals and objectives

3. Check: Verify model content re specification

4. Act:

• Predict project performance, or behaviors – attribute values

– Predictions based on models, judgement

• Evaluate project performance:

– Acceptability of predicted behaviors vs. specific objectives



1. Plans: Specifications of project intent, or functional goals and objectives:

– Broad goals for project and content of models at specified LOD

– Specific team and individual deliverables and commitments

– Specific measurable performance objectives

2. Models of project designs, or “forms” -- dos

– Product: 3D BIM

– Organization: team members, budgets, charters

– Process: tasks, methods, resources

3. Checks:

• Verification of model content re specification – conformance checks

• Predictions of project performance – attributes– Predictions based on models and stakeholder judgment

– Assumptions used in predictions

4. Next steps:

• Evaluation of project performance:

• Risk assessment and mitigation strategy

• Actions using current design and models)Chalmers Integrated Product, Organization and Process (c) 2015

11

Deliverables of a typical ICE session



Potential value of VDC

• Better project or corporate

performance (measurably)

– Suggests need for ~weekly

performance data: specify >3

metrics

• Better clarity of decision processes,

for

– Decision-makers

– Execution team

– Executive team

• Better plans and clear commitments

for working team

• Increased profitability: ↓rework; ↓work

effort; ↑business

VDC methods:

• Models: Product (3/4D),

organization (commitments),

process (plan, schedule)

• Collaboration methods: ICE

• Analyses (model-based): Clash,

Structure, QTO, cost, energy, …

• Metrics: Outcome, process,

controllable factors


12



13

Observations

ICE at NASA-JPL characteristics

• Organization: Multiple stations (~18)

• Process: careful design

• Technology:

– Multiple shared display screens

– Shared database (Icemaker)



14

Coordination Latency is the fundamental performance metric for knowledge work

• Response latency = Time from a designer posing a

question to receipt of a useful answer

• Decision latency = Time from receiving useful

information to making a decision with it

• Good engineering practice for both: 2 days

– weeks typical

• Measurable ICE Objective for latency: minutes,

reliably

– For and as assessed by all intended stakeholders



15

Simple analysis of Latency

Traditional

• Project requires

100 “queries” per engineer @ Latency = 2 days (good!)

100 modeling, analysis, meeting “tasks” @ task durations < 2 days

Project duration ~ 200 calendar days (typical)

Latency paces schedule(typical)

Not direct work

ICE (Team-X)

• Project requires

100 “queries” per engineer @ Latency = 1 minute

100 modeling, analysis, sidebar “tasks” @ task durations ~8 minutes

Project duration ~ 2 calendar days (Team-X)

Direct work (modeling + analysis + documentation)paces schedule (Team-X),

Not coordination latency



16

ICE requires latency management

• Latency extends schedules

– Interdependent tasks have incessant information requests

– Requests have response delays (latency)

– Latency adds no value, measures collaborative waste

• Integrated Concurrent Engineering dramatically cuts time and latency

– Reduces latency from days to minutes

– Direct work tasks must run in minutes

– Enables radically decreased project duration

– Researchers, practitioners report improved cost, quality

– Requires high reliability (> 99%) latency: one major latency source jeopardizes project success

– New organizational form



How ICE (Team-X) works

Manages:

1. Duration of direct work tasks

– Model, describe, predict,

explain, evaluate, generate

alternatives, decide

– Requires highly skilled

engineers with excellent tools

that they know well and culture

that provides good enough

answers

2. Coordination Latency

– Time for a designer to obtain

usable information

– Requires many enabling factors

Supports both:

1. Associative (divergent) thinking

– Many options, intuitive,

including unique idea

Fluency (lots of options),

Flexibility (different kinds),

Original (at least one)

2. Analytical (convergent) thinking

data, prediction, analysis,

evaluation and recommendations

that believably support decision-

making

– Actionable


17



18

ICE Methods

Normal Stations

• Owner

• Product: model functions, scope, behaviors

• Organization: model functions, scope, behaviors

• Process: model functions, scope, behaviors

• Integrated project: POP model

• Facilitator (session leader)

• Project manager

Process

• All stations simultaneously develop model inputs

• Coordinate continuously

• Assess and evaluate first design option

• Deliver project:

– Definition

– Objective assessment

– Option evaluation



19

Steps to perform ICE sessions …

• Pre-planning: a few days immediately prior to ICE sessions– Invite a very small set of project principals (2-4)

– Do project definition and identify POP model at Level-B with ~10 each of P, O, P elements

• Determine the design space to explore in ICE session:– Invite participants of actors in POP model to ICE session

– Select modeling and analysis tools and methods

• Assure that facility and intended tools are available

• ICE session: ~3 sessions within one week

• Post-session: a few days immediately following ICE sessions to create formal deliverables



20

When to hold ICE sessions …

• For each major project phase

– at least early (concept and schematic), detailed (DD,

CD) and to plan construction

• Collaborating with your other stakeholders

• Hold a set of about 3 ICE sessions

• Build and analyze a project model for the next

phase in enough detail to identify objectives,

scope and predicted performance believably



21

Why to hold an ICE session

• Do project definition rapidly and believably

– Define functional objectives, scope, behaviors of Project, i.e.,

• Product, Organization, Process

• Clearly identify tasks and deliverables for next period (week or month)

– Focus: product element and system(s) served

– Who: responsible group, individuals

– What: tasks to perform

– When: according to broadly reviewed and accepted schedule

– How: methods and resources to be used by responsible team(s) to coordinate, do work and verify work

– Context: specific

• risks and uncertainties to address based on broad project review

• coordination tasks to assure success given risks



22

To plan a set of ICE sessions

• Enable effective use of ICE methods– Professional development of potential team members - create

culture, methods, incentives

– Implement enabling tools: P, O, P modeling and analysis applications, display technology, shared database

• Plan each set of ICE sessions: Identify – Objectives and intended deliverables: models, analyses, reports,

recommendations, …

– Number of sessions and calendar schedule: typically 2-4 over ~ 1 week

– Intended participants, tasks for each session

– Effort and time budgets for use of ICE sessions

– Process performance metrics and methods: measured and assessed quality, schedule, cost



ICE vs. traditional meetings

Issue ICETraditional

meetings

Outcome re issue at

hand

Resolution Tracking of status

Agenda management Focused on clear, shared

agenda

Tangents, pursuit of

personal agendas

Description of

problem and context

Shared and clear Individual

perceptions

Number of options

considered

Multiple; consider what-

ifs

Focused on agenda

of one individual

Supporting

technologies

Interactive visual models

and analyses

Paper and appeal to

understanding of

others

23




Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and WorkChip and Dan Heath

Risks in decision-making - decision situations to

avoid:

• Narrow framing of a problem: focus on immediate issue

• Confirmation bias: did it this way last time so let’s do it

that way again

• Short-term emotion: don’t hurt feelings of anyone

• Over-confident: failure to identify Plan-B “just in case”


24



Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work

Risks in decision-making - decision situations to avoid:

• Narrow framing of a problem: focus on immediate issue

Wide set of design options


that way again

Really test assumptions; embrace disagreement


Find distance from past and then decide


Prepare multiple contingencies “just in case”


25



Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work

Risks in decision-making - decision situations to avoid:

• Narrow framing of a problem: focus on immediate issue;

Wide set of design options


that way again

Really test assumptions; embrace disagreement


Find distance from past and then decide


Prepare multiple contingencies “just in case”

ICE can help


26



Staff survey: Example of how senior management helps

1. I feel that I can challenge people at any level in my organization without fear.

2. I feel I can ask for and receive the resources (time, budget, equipment) I need to solve

problems.

3. My Manager/Supervisor makes it easy to speak up when problems arise.

4. My Manager /Supervisor listens to bad news, yet still asks for unrealistic targets.

5. When we present bad news, our Manager/Supervisor repeatedly asks for more

information focused on showing that the problem is not as bad as it seems.

6. My Manager/Supervisor encourages us to ask for help outside our organization or the

chain of command (e.g., outside our project or work group or next level up) if we need it.

7. I am aware of what to do when a Manager/Supervisor doesn’t respond appropriately to

bad news and it needs to be escalated to a higher level.

8. My team uses metrics and processes effectively (e.g., trend program, standard metrics,

etc.) to analyze, surface & solve problems.

9. In my organization, we live by our corporate values

10. The formal metrics in my organization often do not convey an accurate picture of

performance.


32



ICE session

• Plan:

– Form a group to do a class project. Make sure that

team has SimVision

– Take a few minutes and plan for your project:

• “Big Idea”

• Outcome metrics and target values for each x 2-3

• POP framework

• Do: Meet in groups of 2-3 teams in discuss your plans in

an ICE session

• Check and Act: each ICE session summarize

discussions for class


33



34

ICE Enabling Factors

(Committed)

Organization(Dynamic) Process

(Visual)

Technology

Stakeholders Present:

(Closed knowledge

network)

Shared reciprocal

expectations

Excellent discipline-

specific modeling,

visualization tools

Focused design staff:

100% committed in

sessions

Processes clear: (low

equivocality)

Rich communications

media

Flat organization

structure

Processes distinct: High

structure independence

Integrated database

Egalitarian culture Resolve problems in small

self-formed groups (Pooled

communications)

High goal congruence



Assessment of status of ICE Enabling Factors


46

(Committed)

Organization

(Dynamic) Process (Visual)

Technology

Stakeholders Present:Processes clear: (low

equivocality):

Excellent discipline-

specific modeling,

visualization tools:

Focused design staff:

100% committed in

sessions:

Processes distinct:

Rich

communications

media:

Flat organization

structure:

Resolve problems in

small self-formed

groups:

Integrated database:

Egalitarian culture

High goal congruence:



47

ICE Enabling factors: so what?

• Necessity: excellent ICE performance requires allfactors to work well

• Sufficiency: No one factor suffices

• Early evidence (Stanford classes) of necessity, sufficiency of these factors (from observations or theoretically-founded simulation)

• Process and team experience are crucial, so understanding factors may help understand how to change Team-X to– Make specific improvements

– Replicate Team-X (in less than 10 years it to create it)



1. Plans: Specifications of project intent, or functional goals and objectives:

– Broad goals for project and content of models at specified LOD

– Specific team and individual deliverables and commitments

– Specific measurable performance objectives

2. Models of project designs, or “forms” -- dos

– Product: 3D BIM

– Organization: team members, budgets, charters

– Process: tasks, methods, resources

3. Checks:

• Verification of model content re specification – conformance checks

• Predictions of project performance – attributes– Predictions based on models and stakeholder judgment

– Assumptions used in predictions

4. Next steps:

• Evaluation of project performance:

• Risk assessment and mitigation strategy

• Actions using current design and models)Chalmers Integrated Product, Organization and Process (c) 2015

48

Deliverables of a typical ICE session



ICE pre-plan


49

ICE Plan Example template from templates file

Problems Outcomes Resources

Problems for

session to

focus on

Desired outcomesIntended

Participants

Participant

discipline

Pre-session

assignments

Member of

pre-plan

team

(yes/no)

Role in ICE

session

Member of

post-

session

wrapup

team

(yes/no)

Agenda items

Outcome intent

met?

(Yes/Partial/No)

Meeting

space,

technologies,

models, tools

Specify

architectural

spaces first

floor

Spaces to model are

specified

Mary Architect Owner share project

goals and objectives

Yes Discipline expert Yes Review project goals

and objectives

Smart Boards

Size building

systems

Systems in first floor are

sized and specified

Joe MEP Engineer Define and share

team charter

No Discipline expert No Specify spaces,

systems,

components to

model

Excel

Identify building

construction

components for

first floor

Components (first floor)

that take > 1 hour to install

are listed and added to

spec of components to

model

Hamid PM PM assure

availability of BIM

authoring and review

tools for team

members

Yes Facilitator Yes assign modeling

tasks to individuals

Meeting space

with tables,

chairs for team of

10

Sonya Owner Owner share project

goals and objectives

No Recorder Yes Plan coordination

activities for each

modeling task

ICE pre-plan

Participants Agenda



Production plan Commitments


50

Commitment Example template from templates file.

– Add a few commitments for follow-up work

Task Priority Short descriptionResponsible

team

Budget (FTE-

hours)

Coordination

dependent

team(s)

Approval

teamDue date

Done on-

timeComments/ model image(s)

1

A (Contract

requirement) Add door in BIM PM 20 Architect PM 4/1/2013 No

2



Coordination commitments


51

Coordination template from templates file

• Add a few coordination commitments for follow-up

work

Planned

coordination

activity

Responsible

individualsDue date

Due date met

(y/n)?Expected LOD Comments

Coordination Commitments



Deliverable commitment report: Example template


53

Planned

deliverable

Responsible team,

individualsReceiving team Due date

Due date

met (y/n)?Expected LOD Comments

BIM spec for

current stepCore team BIM architect Mm/dd Top-10 $ elements

BIM review Review team x 50 PM Mm/dd [1:5] each teamNo team priority

yet

Next step plan

developmentCore team PM Mm/dd

Task size 2-5 FTE-

weeks

Sr Mgt approve

next stepSr Management PM Mm/dd Yes/no/ buts Decision required

Deliverables Example



Risks


54

Risks Example template from templates file

• Add a few based on your review during or at end of

session

Identified risk

Potential

impact of risk

($, time, effort)

Severity:

Low,

Medium,

High

Parties

affected by

risk

Individuals

responsible for

mitigating

design,

approval

Earliest

analysis/ last

responsible

moment dates

Mitigation

activity

Resolution

date met

(Yes/No)?

Comments

BIM ready

partner teams

available

Dramatic

schedule High

Client Early partner

relationship

team

Day-1/ end of

concept phase

BIM training

for partner

staff

Best to set

expectat-ions

early

Sea level rise

Costs/

curtailed

operations

Medium OperationsConcept

design team

Day-1/ end of

ConceptDikes 100-year risk

Goverment

plan OK

Delay open

dayLow Operations Core group

Day-1/ facility

open

Engage

government

review early

Ongoing risk

Paint spec

unclear or

inappropriate

Cost: use

contingency;

schedule delay

Low

Client Core groupDay-1/ facility

open

Vet across

different

examples

Risks - Example



55

Use ICE for Target value design for cost, schedule, energy, …

• Generate and evaluate many design options w/ICE

• Select target cost

• Rapid design method: PIDO http://network.modefrontier.eu/documentation/pido.html

Value

CostLow High

Assessed project value and

predicted cost of many options

+ ∆

- ∆

Linear value

curve

http://network.modefrontier.eu/documentation/pido.html



56



• Select target costValue

CostLow High

Assessed project value and

predicted cost of many options

+ ∆

- ∆

Non-Linear

value curve



57



• Select target schedule Value

ScheduleLow High

Assessed project value and predicted

schedule of many options

+ ∆

- ∆



Use ICE for multi-discipline target value design:

• When a change affects two

measures of project success,

–Choose when upside value

exceeds downside risk

–E.g., - ∆ cost risk

< + ∆ upside schedule

compression value

(c) 2015

58




To read more

• Section Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)

supports VDC

– Pp 34-38 in VDC recommended reading

– "Virtual Design and Construction: Themes, Case Studies and

Implementation Suggestions," CIFE working Paper #97, 2015.


59

http://cife.stanford.edu/online.publications/WP097.pdf



ORID: Focused Conversation and Analysis

Objective

What do you recall

seeing?

Reflective

Positive

What do you feel

positive about?

Reflective

Negative

What do you find

negative?

Interpretive

What sense do you

make of it?

Decisional

What agreements

can be made now?


60



Integrated Concurrent Engineering

John Kunz

Rate

Baseline

($K) Change

Year-1

(K$)

Revenue 100,000 2% 102,000

Cost of contracted work 85% 85,000 -2.0% 84,660

Cost of self-performed work 10% 10,000 2.0% 12,240

Gross Margin 5,000 5,100

Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,040

IT investment 70

Amortized costs of IT/yr 33% 23

Net income 3,000 3,037

Time to payback (years) 1.9

Net Income change (%) 1.2

*05-07-01

Finish

Final Program

Confirmation with

Pharmacology

Final Program

confirmation with LAR

KPFF

SRG Lab Task 37 Task 44 Project Mgt AEI Core Task 41 Task26 H Block Crew Task 23SRG / AEI

TechnicalAEI Core and

SRG LabHDCCO Costing

SRG

TechnicalKPFF

AEI Core

and TechHDCCO Core

Code Rev

ConsultantSolvent Tarter

H Block Crew

& Tech

SRG

Landscape

Tele Data

DesignCode Rev

Furniture

37.

*Reprogram

B#15 Shafts

34. *Finalize

Pharmacology

Program

33. *Finalize

LAR Program

32. *Finalize

Bio-Organic

Chemistry

Program

35. *Finalize

Protein Chemistry

Program 20. *Determine Scope of

package D including vivarium

changes

45. *Complete all

Basement/LAR Drawings

41. *Reprogram

bookends B#13 and

B#15

36. *Analyze

structural impacts

12. *Complete UG

utiliites

25. *Do Central Plant

design changes

19. *Determine vertical

utilities

22. *Complete catwalk drawings

52. Finalize landscape

26. *Finalize B#13 and

B#15

Exiting/architecural H

occupancy concept

*Lab and

vivarium

Programming

Complete

27. *Finalize B#13,

15 Shaft Size &

MEP Room

Locations

31.* AEI &

SRG

Determine

Design $/Time

Impact of

Change

23. *Reprogram

B#13 and B#15

Exterior Architecture

Bookend

Programming


Notice to proceed on

structural changes

Architect

program/MEP

oncepts

Established

By Design

Team

29. *Document

lab plan

1. *Redesign main MEP

distribution systems

SRG Management AEI Management

Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

5. *Finalize lab & Equipment

plans

Task 29

Task 28

30. *Approve

Change to

Design

Contract

21. *Prepare Plan Views for

Review of Concept w/City

39. *Finalize MEP

distribution and

section

Task4 Task22

Review 80%

documents

48. *Develop exiting

plan

49. Develop

reflected ceiling

plan

Turnover

reflected

ceiling plan to

AEI

Detailed Design 80 PC

Complete

3. Complete Tele Data Design

42. *Develop

Execution

Strategy

44. *Complete

B#14 Officing

Planning

18. *Detailed Lab

Program

Documentation

47. *Develop lab

DD plan

28. *Determine

segregation of lab

and tech space

G accept lab

equipment matrix

*Package B structural

modifications (CCD3A)

13. *Code Consultants

Review Concept for final

city Presentation

14. *HDCCO update Estimate of cost

of Program

Review skin changes w/db team


Meetings with

Pharmacology

Lab planning Program Meeting with Protein

Chemistry

BMS Controls Meetings

(Weekly)

Lab Planning Program meeting with Bio

Organic 80% Drawing Review

Tele Data Coordination MeetingsSteel Detailing

Meetings

Genentech 80% Detailed Design

Review

Final Program

Confirmation with Officing

Weekly

Coordination

Meeting


Meetings with Directors

50. Designate size, location of

13 MEP, teledata rooms

54. KPFF design

stairs for 13/1438. *SRG

Reprogram 13/14

interface, exiting,

stairs

43. *Changes in Steel

Forwarded to Steel

Detailers

46. *RA Furnture

Concept Complete

MEP, Teledata room design

*Design Budget &

Schedule for Changes

Approved

*Notice to proceed

with detailed design

24. *Complete B13,4 H

block occupancy

requirements on MEP

systems

17. *Risick

reprogram solvent

distribution and waste

Issue 80%

MEP CDs

(20) Incorporate

80% MEP review

comments

(19) Genentech review

80% drawings

53. Incorporate

comments, complete

Architectural detail

2. Initial redesign MEP branch

lateral distribution

G accept

13/14

Interface

*City Accept

exiting

*Package C

skin

modifications

55. KPFF design

stairs for 15/14

40. *SRG

Reprogram 15/14

interface, exiting,

stairs

B13 MEP HVAC,

conduit, piping mains

completed

MEP 80% Review

comments

incorporated

Package D and UG

addendum issued:

underground utilities,

vivarium catwalk

10. Draft Alternate means

15. Jeff reprogram HMIS

(3) *AEI design MEP

HVAC, Conduit &

piping mains B13

16. *HDCCO Determine

Schedule Impact

City Approval of

Alternate Means

for Program

8. Review Alternate

Means w/impact on LEL

and LFFH

(21-4) Finalize MEP Details,

update specs and p&ID's

(8) *Revise

MEP loads, MEP

Equipment

schedules

finalized

(13,15,16) MEP specs, P&ID's,

control sequences

Work Process

Meetings

(6) Coord B13 MEP

floor section

4. complete all Interior Architcture

*Cal OSHA Recommend

Determination of LFFH

51. Designate size, location

of 14 MEP, teledata rooms G accept

15/14

Interface

*Accept project

scope:budget

by Genentech

*City Approval of

H Concept

*Exterior

Programming


*Turnover lab and

vivarium DD plan

to AEI

Object AttributeRequirement

Relationship Requirement

Predicte

d value

Observed

value -2 -1 0 1 2

Product

Product Scope

Product Scope . Building Spaces includes -

Project Goals

Project Goal . Capacity (people) >= 60 - ?o

Project Goal . Cost (M$) = 70 - ?o

Building

Goal . Net Energy Use (K-

BTU/ft2) <= 250 - ?o

Building

Goal . Quality conformance

(%) >= 12 - ?o

Organization Scope

Organization Scope . Actors includes - -

Organization Goals

Organization Goal . Predicted . Cost (K$) - <= - ?o

Organization

Goal . Observed . Response

Latency (days) 3 <= - ?o

Organization

Goal . Predicted . Peak

Backlog (days) 3 <= - ?o

Organization

Goal . Predicted . rework

(FTE-days) - <= - ?o

Process

Process Goals

Process Goal . Peak Quality Risk < 0.50 - -

Process

Goal . Schedule Growth

(months) < - ?o

Process Goal . Completion Date <= 1/1/09 - ?o

Process Task . Action: Object

Process Task . Design: Actor Actor that designs

Process Task . Predict: Actor Actor that predicts

Process Task . Assess: Actor Actor that assesses

Process Task . Build: Actor Actor that builds

Function Product Behavior

Organization

Qualitative Threshhold values

The big ideas: Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) is a social

method, helped by technology, to create and evaluate multi-

discipline, multi-stakeholder VDC models extremely rapidly.

Multiple factors together enable its success.



Organization Scope . Actors includes - Integrated ...web.stanford.edu/~kunz/Chalmers/Chalmers15/ICEOverview.pdf · Accepted by Genentech ... • Integrated Concurrent Engineering

Documents