the climate change impact
DESCRIPTION
Presentation of the impact of climate changeTRANSCRIPT
1
Achieving project success using Theory of Constraints beyond Critical Chain Project Management
PhD Research proposalMaryam Mirzaei
School of Management
Supervisors:Prof. Vicky Mabin
Dr. Jim Sheffield
Date: 28 Feb 2013
Overview Introduction Theory of Constraints (TOC) Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) Moving beyond CCPM Research question Methodology
Introduction • Motivation
Project management as my research area Project management as my career path Critical chain project management as “the answer” Viewing my research as a project raised “new questions”
• Significance of the Study Project management is the most significant characteristic of the modern
organizations Scholars call for new approaches in project management Theory of constraints has provided breakthrough solution in many areas Project classification is an emerging knowledge base
TOC What it is , where it has emerged
how it deal with uncertainty ,
(Goldratt & Cox, 1984)
TOC
Manufacturing
Distribution
Throughput Accounting
Marketing
Strategic planning
CCPM Assumptions:Known tasks Known durationsKnown capacities (machine and human) Resource conflict (scarce resources)Structured network (precedence relations)
CCPM
CCPM Single Project Multi project
Prerequisite 1 - Identify the System and its Purpose
The Project(Leach, 1999; Steyn, 2001)
Collection of projects(Deac & Vrincut, 2010; Globerson, 2000; Lechler et al., 2005)
Prerequisite 2 - Determine the System’s Measures
Duration(Leach, 1999; Steyn, 2001)
Profit (Throughput)(Deac & Vrincut, 2010; Globerson, 2000; Lechler et al., 2005)
1. IDENTIFY the system's constraint
Longest chain of activity (Goldratt, 1997; Leach, 2004, p. 106)
Bottleneck resource (Budd & Cerveny, 2010; Cohen, Mandelbaum, & Shtub, 2004; Herroelen & Leus, 2001; Huang, Chen, Li, & Tsai, 2012; Leach, 2004 ;Newbold, 1998)
2. Decide how to EXPLOIT the system's constraint
Remove the individual buffer(Goldratt, 1997, p. chapter 13)
No Idle time for bottleneck resource (Budd & Cerveny, 2010; Cohen, Mandelbaum, & Shtub, 2004; Herroelen & Leus, 2001; Huang, Chen, Li, & Tsai, 2012; Leach, 2004 ;Newbold, 1998)
3. SUBORDINATE everything else to the above decision
Add feeding buffer(Cox et al., 2012, p. 76)
Add capacity buffer(Budd & Cerveny, 2010; Cohen, Mandelbaum, & Shtub, 2004; Herroelen & Leus, 2001; Huang, Chen, Li, & Tsai, 2012; Leach, 2004 ;Newbold, 1998)
4. ELEVATE the system's constraint (Leach, 1999; Steyn, 2001)
?
5. Repeat ? ?
CCPM ,
Endorsements of CCPM Direction for project management in the 21st century
(Newbold, 1998; Steyn, 2002; Vrincut, 2009)
Numerous successful applications(Bevilacqua, Ciarapica, & Giacchetta, 2009; Hwang, Chang, & Li, 2010; Leach, 1999; Newbold, 2008; Paseuth, 2003; Realization Technologies,
Inc, 2010; Smith, 2012; Srinivasan, Best, & Chandrasekaran, 2007; Stratton, 1998; Umble & Umble, 2000; Viljoen, 1997)
Simple and workable (Newbold, 1998; Steyn, 2002; Vrincut, 2009; Raz et al., 2003)
Stable schedule, Minimises work in progress (Herroelen, Leus, & Demeulemeester, 2002; PMI, 2008; Woeppel, 2005)
Addresses duration uncertainty well (Elton, 1998; Herroelen et al., 2002; Herroelen & Leus, 2001; Raz, Barnes, & Dvir, 2003)
Takes human factors into account(Goldratt, 1997; Huang et al., 2012; Leach, 1999; Newbold, 1998; Woeppel, 2006)
Criticisms on CCPM
Not applicable to all kind of projects(Mckay & Morton, 1998; Raz et al., 2003)
Not innovative (Trietsch, 2005)
Lack of mathematical analysis(Ashtiani, Jalali, Aryanezhad, & Makui, 2007; Jian-Bing, Hong, & Ji-Hai, 2008; Kuo, Chang, & Huang, 2009)
Creating a good baseline schedule is not easy(Raz et al., 2003)
Rejects data in later stages of the project(Dietrich & Lehtonen, 2005; Cohen et al., 2004)
Assumptions need to be clarified(Hill, Thomas, & Allen, 2000; Raz et al., 2003)
Success of a single project is measured in term of its duration
Success of a portfolio of projects is measured in term of its profit
11
Project successSuccess factors Project managers expertise (Rubin & Seelig, 1967)
Top management support (Avots, 1969),
Ten key success factors (Slevin and Pinto, 1987)
Project team skills (Brown, 2001)
96 different variables (Shenhar and Dvir,1996)
Grouped success factors (Belassi & Tukel, 1996)
Senior management commitment/ organizational structure
and risk management (Lester, 1998)
Defining the project team (Abdel-Hamid, Sengupta, and Swett, 1999)
Documentation-based learning (Schindler & Eppler, 2003)
Quality of planning, goal changes, and plan-changes (Dvir and
Lechler, 2004)
More comprehensive success factors (Ika, 2009)
Necessary conditions versus sufficient conditions (Poon,
Young, Irandoost and Land, 2011)
Success criteria
Time/ Cost /Quality
Meeting the design goals/benefit to the development of the company/benefit to end user (Arye ,2000)
End-user satisfaction / customer-satisfaction (Hoegl and Gemuenden, 2001)
12
Project success
Success and ways of achieving it will differ based on:
Project life cycle
Portfolio influence
Project type (classification)
13
Research QuestionsHow can the application of TOC to project management move beyond CCPM?
• How are project constraints influenced by its characteristics?
• How are project constraints influenced by its portfolio?
• Why can certain available / proposed models or methods address certain types of constraints better?
CCPM and project typology
15
Methodology
According to Yin how and why questions could be answered using case study
Case study as a research method allows in-depth analysis of an existing phenomenon
The nature of research is exploratory as there is no assumed hypothesis of what the constraints should be. And the research is the first of its type (looking for different types of constraint in different types of projects)
Research method: Case study
16
Project management is action oriented Prescriptive research seeks to help people solve practical problems (Ahlemann et al., 2012; Denyer, Tranfield, & Aken, 2008; Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, Jackson, & Easterby-Smith, 2008).
“Prescriptive research is the heart of project management discipline” (Ahlemann et al., 2012)
Design Sciences Paradigm(Denyer et al., 2008; Ahlemann et al., 2013; Denyer et al., 2008; Simon, 1996)
technology-oriented counterpart to natural sciences Design of artifacts that serve human beings (tangible and intangible)
Methodology
Research approach: Abductive• Deduction– an analytic process based on the application of general rules toparticular cases with the inference of a result
• Induction– synthetic reasoning which infers the rule from the case and theResult
• Abduction– another form of synthetic inference but of the case from a ruleand a result
(Adapted from Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Kovacs & Spens, 2005)
Methodology
18
Logic models Intermediate Objective map:A system level logic tree based on necessary condition relationships (Dettmer, 2007)
Data AnalysisCurrent reality tree:a logic-based tool for using cause-and-effect relationships to determine root problems that cause the undesirable effects of the system (Cox, 2003; Goldratt, 1994; Kim, Mabin, & Davies, 2008; Mabin, 1999; Scheinkopf, 1999)
Case investigation process Multiple sources of data
will be used including:
Documentation
Structured Interviews
Semi structure Interviews
20
Project portfolios • Collective success of single
projects (Artto and Dietrich, 2007; Martinsuo and Lehtonen,
2007; Platje, Seidel, & Wadman, 1994)
• Alignment with organization strategy both deliberate and emergent (Boyd, Gupta, & Sussman, 2001; Meskendahl,
2010, 2010; Muller, Martinsuo, & Blomquist, 2008; Pearson, 1990; Pellegrinelli, 1997)
• Balanced along a range of dimensions (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 1999; Cooper,
Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2001; Killen et al., 2008; Mikkola,2001)
• Profitability (Cooper et al., 2001; Chang, Kan, & Wang, 2010)
21
Project classificationMatrix classifications: Two dimensions: End and Means (Pearson, 1990)
Three dimensions: Software–Hardware / strategic goal of the project / technological uncertainty (D Dvir et al., 1998)
Five dimensions:
1. Strategic goal of the project2. Market uncertainty3. Technological uncertainty4. System scope5. Pace (Shenhar, 2001; Shenhar et al., 2002)
22
Pilot case study 1
NC: adopt Lean cosntruction policy
Goal: Maximum profit by construction of 174 three story housing units
CSF: minimix cost CSF: do not pay conpensation for delay
NC: minimise material cost
NC : minimise movement cost
NC: minimise labour cost NC: Minimize material misplace and abuse and forge claims
NC: follow a sound schedule
NC: keep good record of excuses to request extention
NC: maintain quality to avoid rework
NC: provide material in advance on time to the site to avoide delay
NC: assure more labours work on the site
NC: produce some of basic material such as blocks, and precast elements near the site NC : invest in material purchase before the peak demand start
NC: avoide direct labour and always employ subcontractors
NC: organize Professional procuement team
NC: use an advanced information management system
NC: pay subcontractors regualrly as per work done
NC: claim for material in site
NC: constantly look for more subcontractorsNC: facilitate overtime work for subcontractorsNC: constantly look for more subcontractors
NC: organize good supervision on site NC: collaborate supervision with donors
UDE1: it is expensive to transport required material
UDE2: Construction material are in high demand in that area
UDE3: Construction workers are in high demand
UDE4: Schedules are prepared and decided independent from construction actors,
UDE5: Schedules require to be changed very often
UDE6: existing audit may be very late to indicate any issue related to abuse and misplace
UDE7: The amount of work is overwhelmingly large that an individual project manager can not handle organizing everything
UDE8: It is very difficult to negotiate with new contractors, if we pay more we need to pay more to existing constractors in this project as well as other projects they are involved
UDE9: Subcontractors do not understand the profitability of their work until they get paid, and sometime they overclaim and realize their states when it is too late
UDE10: direct labour is very risky
UDE11: There are very few contractors who have experience to do such big projects
UDE12: New contractors are not likely to succeed
UDE13: Conmix do not have a management system for its construction unit and they use same system as distribution unit for track of material
UDE14: Office work in the site is very costly (due to high demand in the area)
UDE15: Conmix can not directly control number of labours
UDE16: External work is not possible to be performed in the bad weather condition
UDE17: Long term schedule cannot account for weather condition
UDE18: There are many political and ethnic conflicts in that area that stops the work for 1/3 days
UDE19: limited material can be stored in the site
E1: many large project starting in the area
UDE20: schedules are not effective
UDE21: There is a high cost of material
UDE22: It is hard to aquire enough labours
E2: conmix do not have a systematic approach that allow management of site in several level by several individuals
E4: the area is not prefered by employees
E5: any job done at the site will be paid irrespective of its place in the schedule
E6: measures happen only along with biddings to save quantity surveys time
AND
AND
AND
AND
E7: subcontractors alter schedules to get more work done
E8: Work will not be interupted for any worker with specialty
E9: Constrcution workers are usually multifunctional
UDE23: there is no local large quantity supplier of construction material
E10: Conmix own construction several material production and distribution unites in other cities
AND
DE1: Cost of transport is very high
E11: Some material will vanish gradually if it is supplied in large quantity (sand, cement
UDE24: Material shortage can interupt the work
E12: There is no large storage area nearby the site for collection of sand and metal
AND
AND
AND
E13: construction material are heavy and large in size
Root cause matches literature
Data Analysis
23
Pilot case study 2
Data Analysis
24
Research Quality
Internal Validity
Classification of data: Project profile
TOC’s tools to scrutinise logic diagrams (Dettmer, 2007)
External Validity
Generalizability : from single case to type of projects
Reliability of the results
Data base : Tables and diagrams
Multi-source data
Chain of evidence
Data Analysis
Schedule
Contributions • Opportunity for new TOC applications to emerge to
address projects that have not been addressed by CCPM
• Identification of 2-4 specific types of constraints that is common in a group of projects
• Contribution to classification models by describing the types of constraints that exist in a few different classes of projects
• Suitability of new models can be investigated as per project typology
Anticipated Issues/Limitations
Issues • Access to projects with required characteristics• Access to multiple interviews with project manager
Limitations • Possible number of cases • Predicted diversity of constraints • Generalisability • Whole picture of constraint/project typology
Questions
• Thanks!
Overview-Theoretical
Overview-Theoretical
38
Methodology• Research approach:
Abductive
Kovacs & Spens, 2005
(Hallgren, 2012)
Assumption challenging research increases the chance to create interesting theories (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011).
Five dimensions Matrix Dimension
Strategic goal of the project
Extension Strategic Problem solving
Utility Research
Market uncertainty
Derivative Platform Breakthrough
Technological uncertainty
Low Medium High Super high
System scope Assembly System Array
Pace Regular Fast/competitive
Blitz/Critical