PowerPoint Presentation

2/3/20161SEPTABroad Street SubwayPropulsion Control System Replacement

presented byBill Brown-PM 420-Spring 2005A

1

2/3/20162High Failure RateHigh Maintenance CostsParts Obsolescence

Reason for Propulsion System Replacement

2/3/20163KM 48 Cam Control System

2/3/20164KM 48 Cam Control System

2/3/20165KM 48 Cam Control System

2/3/20166Electronic Group

2/3/20167GE Propulsion System

2/3/20168WBS Major Indents B4 Propulsion System UpgradeProposalPreliminary Scope of WorkFinancial AuthorizationBidding ProcessAwards Process Pre-production Prototypes (4 Vehicles)Installation on 121 VehiclesDeliverables Review and ValidationWarranty PeriodProject End

2/3/20169Risk Identification Using the WBS I identified my projects individual risks by mentally stepping through all the aspects of the WBS activities to produce my list of uncertainties.

2/3/201610Qualitative Risk AnalysisI used the NASA risk template which uses likelihood and consequences as its x-y inputs. Since, I am the expert on this project I am differentiating the values of likelihood (probability) and consequences (impact) and assigning them to the individual WBS risk elements to determine if my severity is high, medium, or low. Impact and Probability were on a 1-5 scale.0-5 = Low6-15 = Medium16-25 = High

2/3/201611Severity=Impact X ProbabilityExamples

Risk Event:Severity=Impact XProbabilityLowest BidderHigh55Untrained WorkforceMedium25Document Translation ProblemsLow13

2/3/201612Qualitative Risk AnalysisDue to the nature of my company most of the high severity risks fell under the technical/performance category.Project cost risks were generally low because SEPTA historically has used their operating budgets for project cost overruns and has accepted unmet specifications by making trades with the vender.Project scheduling risks were generally low because new systems are installed a one car at a time and the new systems are required to work in mixed consist with the other cars.

2/3/201613Quantitative Risk Analysis I further quantified my most severe risks by adding a detectability factor. Also, since 2 of my risks will cause other high, medium, and low risks I quantified these as ultra high.

2/3/201614Risk #1: Lowest Bidder The lowest bidder risk would be realized during the awards Phase (1.5) of the project.Awarding the contract to the lowest bidder and not to the best qualified bidder increases the probability and impact of the other risks.

2/3/201615Risk #1: Lowest BidderExpected Scenario: Inability to meet less critical contract demands, such as: maintenance training and documentation requirements. This scenario will affect the long-term life cycle requirements. Pessimistic Scenario:Inability to meet major design, quality, and safety requirements which could result in the halting of the project causing major cost and schedule overruns. This scenario could have the potential to create a public and political scandal.Optimistic Scenario:In this case we saved money and will get a good product that will be maintainable for years to come. Perhaps the lowest bidder was under cutting the competition because they are efficiently run or they wanted to enter the market.

2/3/201616Risk #1: Lowest Bidder PlanAcceptance: Specify that they must have documented manufacturing expertise in rail propulsions systems.Acceptance: Set clear quality control checkpoints, such as: first article inspections and on-site inspection of the manufacturers quality assurance plans.Acceptance: Select best personnel to monitor, validate and communicate vender performance.

Risk Triggers:It is a matter of policy.

2/3/201617

2/3/201618Risk #2: Poor Consultant Performance The poor consultant risk would be realized during the specification Phase (1.2.2) and acceptance phases (1.6.2 & 1.7.2) of the project.SEPTA relies on engineering consultants to write the system specifications. This risk increases the probability and impact of the other risks.

2/3/201619Risk #2: Poor Consultant PerformanceExpected Scenario: The consultant will write a satisfactory specification but will not be held accountable to enforce it and will not be paid to stay on the project full time. The program manger will make uninformed decisions and make engineering changes that will affect operation and maintenance departments negatively. Pessimistic Scenario: The consultant will write a poor specification that does not hold the system manufacturer to the highest design, quality, and safety requirements and standards. SEPTA will not get what it wants and we will not be able to hold the manufacturer liable.Optimistic Scenario: The consultant will write an outstanding specification and be able to hold the manufacturer to it so that so that everything specified was received.

2/3/201620Risk #2: Poor Consultant Performance PlanTransference: Ensure consultant contract includes bonding of services.Mitigation: Ensure the consultancy firms has the proper resources and experience required along with backup personnel.Mitigation: Hire an engineer to do the job. Acceptance: Compare spec with similar project in other transit agencies.

Risk Triggers: If specifications are outdated or are replicas of older spec.

2/3/201621Risk #3: Fails Acceptance The failure to pass acceptance testing would be realized during the pre-production prototype phase (1.6) of the project.Once SEPTA approves the pre-production units the remaining units are produced. If SEPTA signs off and later finds certain problems it will cost SEPTA to fix them.

2/3/201622Risk #3: Fails AcceptanceExpected Scenario: The manufacturer will pass the major portions of testing but will require time and many early morning runs to tweak the software and get the bugs out. Pessimistic Scenario (PERT added 71 days to the expected): The manufacturer will not be able to pass major portions of the testing and will have to continue to research and develop on our train and they will require the use of SEPTA expertise to assist them.Optimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will exceed the timing and parametric constraints of the acceptance test.

2/3/201623Risk #3: Fails Acceptance PlanTransference: The spec requires successful acceptance or production will not be signed off on by the engineering manager.Mitigation: Free up the appropriate SEPTA personnel to lend their expertise on the car to assist the manufacturer.Mitigation: Ensure we keep old equipment in good condition in case we have to put it back on.Risk Triggers: Prototypes fail. The manufacturer is asking dumb questions.

2/3/201624Risk #4: High MTBF The failure to pass the mean-time-between-failure requirements would be realized during the warranty phase (1.9) of the project.Once SEPTA installs the propulsion replacement a 2 year warranty period begins. SEPTA must ensure that the failure rate is >50,000 miles between failure.

2/3/201625Risk #4: High MTBFExpected Scenario: The manufacturer will satisfy most of the vehicles MTBF parameters. Some vehicles will fail due the integration of the old and new systems. Pessimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will not be able to pass the 50K mark on any of the vehicles which will require major reengineering and field modifications.Optimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will exceed the requirements and find ways to predict propulsion failures before they happen.

2/3/201626Risk #4: High MTBF PlanTransference: The spec requires successful MTBF or the manufacturer will have to redesign the system.Mitigation: Free up the appropriate SEPTA personnel to lend their expertise on the car to assist the manufacturer.Mitigation: Ensure we keep old equipment in good condition in case we have to put it back on.Risk Triggers: < 50,000 miles failure rate. Red flags going up in prototype acceptance phase.

2/3/201627Risk #5: Inadequate Spares The failure to obtain adequate spare parts would be realized during the project end phase (1.10) of the project.Once SEPTA completes the 2 year warranty period they can compile a spares list using the manufacturers failure information. SEPTA must maintain a low vehicle downtime and quick turn-around times.

2/3/201628Risk #5: Inadequate SparesExpected Scenario:The manufacturer will try to convince SEPTA that their equipment wont fail and SEPTA will buy a limited amount of spares forcing operations to buy more later. Pessimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will not provide every lowest replaceable unit and SEPTA will have trains out-of-service awaiting these parts.Optimistic Scenario: The manufacturer will exceed the requirements because SEPTA decided to listen to their maintenance personnel and support them with an amount of spares that they would be happy with.

2/3/201629Risk #5: Inadequate Spares PlanTransference: The spec requires a set amount of spares.Transference: Start setting up a contingency in the operating budget to buy more spares.Mitigation: Ensure we have the proper test equipment and documentation to repair a small float of spares.Risk Triggers: Placing vehicles out-of-service for parts. Failure data is not provided or conclusive.

2/3/201630 The end

TitleTitleDouble-click to type notes. Subselect "Title"to edit the title.Lowest Bidder or Best Qualified BidderLowest BidderBest qualified WorksFailsWorksFailsLowest Bidder Decision TreeQuality, Cost, and Performance suffer.Life cycle costs increaseQuality, Cost, and Performance suffer.Life cycle costs increaseplus $ difference of cost minus lowest bidder