The assumption is that one canpredict the exact plan of theentire project from start to finish,and the more detailed the planis, the more one can get individ-uals accountable for their localtasks, and in execution, all youneed to do is control and report.
Gantt's methodology was abreakthrough at its time as itallowed, for the first time, to planactivities and dependencies inprojects. However, while inother management disciplines(such as manufacturing)methodologies kept improvingand being updated to the mod-ern times and requirements,exact Gantt schedules are still acommon way to manage projectstoday, and those exact schedulesare the main reason for the mul-titasking effect.
Unfortunately, "exact" sched-ules cannot be followed becauseuncertainties are unavoidableduring execution. For example,tasks take longer than expected,vendors and subcontractors misstheir deadlines, technical glitch-es occur, requirements changeand expand, engineeringdesigns might have to be redone,local or environmental condi-tions may cause delays, andissues can come up during inte-gration and testing of systems.
As uncertainties unfold,delays start accumulating andthe original schedules that had
been so meticulously laid outbecome obsolete.
Faced with both delays and alack of schedules, individualsand teams involved in execu-tion have to decide on theirown what to work on first.These priorities are set locallyby team leads or even by theresources themselves, oftenbased on who is screaming theloudest at the time, or which jobis easier to finish.
As these local priorities over-take the original plans, sooneveryone is marching to a differ-ent drumbeat—and multitask-ing and chaotic execution isunavoidable.
Work keeps getting interrupt-ed because everyone is waitingfor someone else. Sometimes therequired inputs—like technicaldata, drawings and customerapprovals—are not available; atother times the inputs are alllined up but resources—likeengineers, technicians, welders,pipe fitters, cranes are missing.
Reducing multitasking to the
minimum—realising uncer-
tainties: In 1998, almost 100years after Henry Gantt createdhis first chart, finally, a newmethod of managing projectexecution was invented by Dr.Eli Goldratt, known as 'CriticalChain'. Its breakthrough lies inkeeping tasks and resourcessynchronised within and across
projects, even in the face ofuncertainties, without having torely on exact schedules at all.
Instead of communicatingobsolete schedules, it calculatesthe impact of delays in executionand adjusts task prioritiesaccordingly. Managers at alllevels get a list of ready-to-workand upcoming tasks in the orderof relative priority. These priori-ties are synchronised across theorganisation so that multitask-ing and interruptions are held toa minimum, and projects getdone fast and efficiently
Since the theory was invented,it has been turned into a work-able methodology and has beenadopted by a wide range oforganisations around the world,allowing them to increase theexecution rate of projects by 20-50 per cent (see table).
It is clear, that in today's uncer-tain world of project execution,where growth opportunity are inabundance, but skilledresources are scarce, companiescan no longer rely on traditionalproject management. Indiashould not import 100-year old
methodologies, because it willjust replicate the poor projectsuccess rates that have beenachieved in other countries forso many years.
Executives must adopt cuttingedge project execution manage-ment techniques to maximisetheir growth opportunities.
(Realization Technologies, Inc.
is a premium provider of project
execution services in US, Brazil
and India. Kapil Gupta can be
reached at 090-49988918 or pro-
Projectmonitor, Mumbai, September 26-October 2, 2011 1918
When a major project,such as a plant expan-sion, constructing anew refinery or build-
ing a new bridge is late, the con-sequences can be much moreserious than just cost overrunsand contractual penalties.
For the operator or owner of theinfrastructure, every week that aproject runs late is a week of lostrevenues and profits. For thecontractor, the longer a projecttakes, the longer resourcesremain tied up and unavailableto do new projects. Missingdeadlines also undermine thecontractor's credibility with cus-tomers and lessens the possibili-ty of winning future work.
For India, delays in infrastruc-ture projects translates intodelays in lifting millions out ofpoverty and a severe damage toIndia's economy. A 2009 McKin-sey report suggests that if rate ofproject execution in India doesnot dramatically improve, Indiawill bear a direct loss of $200B ofits GDP by 2017.
Despite the significant bene-fits of accelerating projects anddelivering them on time, proj-ects continue to be overdue,over budget, over and overagain. Harvard BusinessReview reports that construc-tion projects fail at an alarming
rate—more than 50 per cent bysome estimates.
No one doubts that scheduleand cost overruns are not onlydevastating but also common inprojects. The real question is,"What, if anything, can we doabout it?"
Blaming factors outside our
control is pointless: There aremany causes for late and failedprojects. One common categoryof culprits is industry-levelissues e.g., slow pre-tenderingapproval process, shortfall inawarding projects, below pardesign and engineering skillsand land acquisition delays.Another usual refrain is thatthere are too many unknownsand every project is late becauseof project-specific surprises.
True, but we don't have to behelpless or wait for the industry orthe government to resolve theseproblems. There are major ineffi-ciencies in all projects that can beplugged by changing how weexecute projects, allowing us todo projects 20-50 per cent faster.
Interruptions and Multitask-
ing—the twin killers of speed
and productivity in projects:
Ask anyone who is involved in
any type of project, and theywould tell you that they cannever finish a task without get-ting interrupted.
These interruptions happen
because:
� The required inputs and sup-porting resources are notavailable when neededbecause task priorities acrossthe organisations are not syn-chronised;
� Managers and experts cannotprovide decisions andapprovals in a timely mannerbecause they have become abottleneck; and
� Higher priority tasks requirepeople to drop whatever theyare doing.When tasks are interrupted,
people are forced to switch toeither higher priority tasks or totasks on which they can do somework. Switching between taskswithout completing them causespeople to lose focus and makethem inefficient and causestasks to take longer.
The effect is intensified when
it comes to equipment and
machines e.g.: cranes. Comparethe performance of a crane thatis focused on one work-front at atime, to one that needs to beused on five different work-fronts at the same time and thedamaging impact of multitask-ing is immediately understood.
Multitasking and interrup-
tions affect not just those whoexperience them. Downstreamresources end up waiting longer,and under the pressure to getgoing they start their tasks out ofsequence. These tasks cannotmake real progress as theydepend on the original delayedtasks, and so they get stuck; andadditional tasks are opened "inthe meanwhile".
Very soon everyone is workingon many tasks and makes only alittle progress on each.
Quality too is a major collateraldamage of multitasking. Whenresources are constantly inter-rupted, they lose concentrationand workmanship suffers. Qual-ity is also impacted whenresources can no longer wait forthe required inputs and deci-sions and proceed with theirtasks, only to find later that theyhave made erroneous assump-tions and their work needs to beredone.
Multitasking and interrup-tions easily account for up 20-50per cent wasted capacity in proj-ects. If this capacity can besaved, projects can be donefaster and with better quality.
Traditional project manage-
ment induces multitasking: Thecommon way to manage projectswas invented in the 1910s byHenry Gantt. It relies ondetailed task schedules with"exact" start and end dates.
ANTHONY AZAVEDO
For India, delays in
infrastructure projects
translates into delays in
lifting millions out of
poverty and a severe
damage to India's economy,
writes KKaappiill GGuuppttaa,,
Vice President, Strategic
Services, Realization
Technologies, Inc.
EXAMPLE OF RESULTS IN EPC PROJECTS
Projects Description Before After
Design and manufacturing of oil and gas
platforms
Design Engineering: 15 mos. Production
Engineering: 9 mos.
Fabrication & Assembly: 8 mos.
Design Engineering: 9 mos.
Production Engineering: 5 mos.
Fabrication & Assembly: 8 mos. 22% height
labor productivity.
Expansion of a mine along with a railway and
port facility to increase iron ore delivery
capacity
22,800 man-hours of engineering design
work had to be completed in 8 months.
Historical delay of 2 weeks and man-hours
overruns of 20%
Project was finished 3 weeks early.
Productivity increased by 25% with only
19,500 man-hours needed.
Overhaul and upgrade of a melter and
process plant for a nicked mine
Projects were consistently late and over
budget
Melter was delivered on time; Plant overhaul
was delivered 1 day early with 10% added to
the scope.
Cost was 96% of planned budged.
Why so many projectsfail and how to fix it
DOING PROJECTS RIGHT
18-19] Construction Special_Final.qxp 9/23/2011 7:05 PM Page 18
