ccpm taiwan

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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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).


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


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

ccpm taiwan

Documents