0---

Dryden Flight Research Center Critical Chain Project

Management Implementation

February, 2012

Dennis Hines

Director for Programs

1

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120004299 2020-03-14T06:19:47+00:00Z

Outline

I· The Need for Change at Dryden

• Choosing a solution and first year Results

• How did we do it, what did we change?

• Implementation Challenges

• Next steps and Conclusions

0--- 2

Dryden Work Environment

• Almost equal support of ARMD, SMD, and HEO with growth in Space Technology

• Majority of work occurs at sub-project or task level

• Work content and schedule driven from outside Dryden

• Program demand exceeds FTE center ceiling

• Highly matrixed Center organization

• Limited number of certain skills in key areas such as structures engineering and backshop support , I ~

• Multi-project environment causes resource conflict

0 --- 3

The Need For Change at Dryden

• Recent NASA audits have indicated that our workforce is stressed to keep up with project demand.

- Many individuals will work on 10 different projects in 1 pay period

• In a Dryden-wide survey, workforce identified improved project planning as the number one area to improve work/life balance

• Need to become more efficient due to a combination of program demand growth and declining budgets

0--- 4

For Our People

• Reduce stress for people

• Reduce multi-tasking

• Improve prioritization of work

• Improve sense of accomplishment

x

>20%

v ..------Relmburseableslti"J Pure ReseCJrch(5"J

Yearly Project

Commitments

.......

.......... .........

...........

Goals

...... Re/mbursl!fllJles

PfJre ReseardJ

Yearly Project

Commitment5

For Our Business

• Improve on-time performance

• Improve Time for: - Training

- R&D

Near Term Opportunities

Infrastructure Improvement

Position us for Available Opportunity

Significant productivity gains (>20%) are required to meet these goals

e 5

Determining a Solution

Dryden senior management realized that we needed to change the way we work

In July 2010, Dryden Management chose to implement CCPM methodology at the start of FY11

0--- 6

First year results

• 250/0 increase in work completed for the first 6 monthsl

• Results declined for a few months as we attacked bottlenecks and thought through mechanical changes

• First QTR FY 2012 we are back on track P hase Comple tions

~Phases A. B C}, D E ... F~

- H i . .... ,i-L. - H i ... a +25% - AL lud l

, '1f1

SOLID RESULTS! 5:J

0---

.----

echanical Changes

• Refocus

---~ACK

ON

TRACK

7

30

25

20

15

10

5

o

Results

Phase Completions (A, BC, DE, F)

3.0

2.5

2.0

L5

1 .0

--Historic --Hist+ 25% --Actu al

1st QTR 2012

Phase completions (6w Rolling Average)

--Historic --Hi, t t 25% --Actual

8

Variance to original Planned Date (BCD)

• New measure developed to drive the correct behavior

• Goals set to cut the variance in half over the next year

DFRC-AVERAGEVARIANCE TO DAYS TO FLIGHT 60

52 51 51 51

50 ...., ~

40

30 ------------------

20 ------------------

10 ------------------

o L--' ___ '--__ -'--___ -L---__ --'-__ -----'

BASELINE S ARf 11/ 9/ 11 11/ 16/ 11 11/ 30/ 11 12/7/11

0--- 9

Other Benefits of CCPM

• Increase time employees can spend on research, training, job skill improvement

• Provide a better work environment for DFRC workforce

• Improved visibility into current & projected status of Center project portfolio for management chain

• Ability to project future resource pinch points and monitor corrective actions

• Concerto software that implements CCPM provides the prioritized task list and buffer consumption charts to assist in conflict resolution

0--- 10

How did we do it?

Followed some simple rules based on CCPM concepts ...

PIPELINING • We staggered project starts to reduce WIP for management and

support and staggered the due-dates to enable stable priorities for direct resources

BUFFERING • Removed measurements based on local efficiency and schedules • Created aggressive/feasible plans with 1/3rd buffers

BUFFER MANAGEMENT List of Tasks

• Set priorities based on buffer consumption • Used buffer consumption for control

11

Due

Date

Project 2

How buffer signals drive priorities

Project Completion = 50%

Buffer Consumption = 40%

Priority Index = 0.4/0.5 = 80%

Project Completion = 33%

Buffer Consumption = 50%

Priority Index = 0.5/0.33 = 150%

Portfolio St 5

ICI%

O% ~ ________________ ~ ____________ ~ ______ ~ __ ~

0% 0% 30% 0 50% 60% 0% 80% 90% 100%

Longest Chan co~ e

13

Priorities for resources

Synchronized priorities and sense of urgency (what to do and how urgently)

Task Manager I D· ' ar ;; n \J\l il~or v I Task Mgr Filter Task Status

~==============~ P" Show rvgrs On l" r.r ~ Pnrl Fr ... i""

&§ Saleh ' rinln,j

~ EI p)~ to Exes

Related Links Ta!;k Le 'lel P-iJriti es E.'{ Task: f'.lar Flow T' l: lld Projects

Shirt Date

I Ft:!Ol 5;0

5111074 ~

Ip'~53 73 6

Ip·~57 ' 36

1R.~57 ~

I CR220 12

I.AII Pr,jects v I T"s k Ro le . ,oJ ~ol Sb rt~d ~::::;:;::;:;::= ___ ~-;:::;::=-_____ -==:l r rv all ~ ger P [r PfO Jres., 19/ 71200 ;) + D<lY 30 r Pa-tcpant r ~Jmple:ed

r. All R"'N

T<lsk Desc

Re:;c, I '/ ~ J ,rera ll De~ i g ll ~e \' i e ', A:tien IE

IteIll S ~ 1/15/1009 ~ F na i.e . : Retc r DV r alll ics ~l e d, a l1icc l lE

~ al13 lv£i£ ~ 7/15/"lOO 9

F na i 'E I sol2ha se l\.ssEn-blv Pro E IE ~ r>'od=ls D

7/15 / 200,)

F na ile ~la i l1 3r, d ~Je Ltral _<ad Field IE [i-A" y

A~,e l1l [) I 'l Des ign ~ Il C LE',out 0 :ahn ... 7/15 / 2(01) IN:; vi F na i,e ~l a i n 3nd f.JeLtral ead FiEld IE IN:; vi Assel1lb l'( Design ~ n c Levout ~

712(/ 20(9

Cefi 1e [nstru me , ta: ion and Tl: rminal IE IN:; vi ElQg rd 0 712(/20 (9

:r

:r

:r

ti

:!

r:

" Adv m,od S. It

'\f MJ3rc,d F II""

Ci. S.arth in ~.&ul~

ISd

19d

15d

13d

ISd

12d

Data is Notional e

M i l ~ s;c ne Re ~ort

r II ... 'Jeec r,larag= rn =nt IE OK r ~e" i e wIA.o ~ rova l

II ... ',Jee c Extra R.esJurce IE Read y r ' F'roE 2'

r II ±I IE M

r II :±l IE

r II :±l IE

7.'15n 009 96

~

IE P,.;;ady 7! 1512009 5 ~

~

IE Fin al 7,' 15{2009 La ya ... 37 rtfll IE I<~ddy

rtfll

IE lfilI

IE ~

14

Priorities for management

Resource managers look to see where tasks are stuck and their urgency

Task tlallage r I.A I T,,;k ~12r2ge rs 8 Tilsk Mg r Filter - Til s k Color

W :;hOVl Mgrs Onl" F R:d F Yellow

I_A I Projects Y Task Ro le . 1-. ====----;::::=:-------=>~ r Gr ee n r Otl er ,- r.:::;:-- r Ver a ge r ==F;;:;:;;J.rli;,;;-F;u:;;;:;:z.:~---------__, 1 7/~ 5i~ 00 9 + DilYSl3C Escalatio ll Filters

(' =>a rl i ~ ipar t P" E ~ca l sted .:c ~

Pruject§

start Date

I • R20 . 569 Cbnduct 0 I' e ra I C·e.si g n Rt .vie'" Paul Yo un J IP o : c

I R201 570 R~s; 'Ie Overall De~i g l1 Re, ielV A:: i ~l lt~ 11 '. ] D-Ka"en " Iwn IP 3d

I C~"- ' ,~~ ;;,. 65 '.I ~ ~ t TEst ~_e q u i r~ 'l1e n tg 13 Lou is Kim flS 2d

I C:;202 "i To p Co I Insta ll ation Lo·ui; Kim IP ~5d ..

l e-e-~ 1i7 EE and TE SUD<lSS;' l rsta lat iol D-Amy J Oll ~O· l IP 7d •

I R251 Develop Stato r RelE 5iE Schedule Loui , Kim IP 3d •

c202 570 R= SJ ve, C veri'l ll Des g n Re." i e IV J\:;:i J 1 ltns Loui.s Kim IP 5d '

SAlO,':' ...2 Firl.<l liz ;, 5 Rotor D'I'n<llll ics ~l - =h a 1 c;;; 1 ;;; r a l \f~i< ~ D'-Ka'e n Vl l ,on IP 9d •

e Data is Notional

7/15/2)J~ ~

7/15(2)J~ ~

~

7I15mn ilt!J

71lS/2m Ifl!t

7/15/2)J~ ~

7/ 1S/ 2)J3 irtlJ

7/ 15/2)JOl ilt!J ~I

15

What did we change?

BEFORE AFTER

WORKLOAD WORKLOAD • Projects accepted with no regard for • Stagger project starts based on capacity

capacity or overloads

• All projects are worked at the same time

• No mechanism to say no or yes to work

PRIORITIES • Projects fight for resources and the

Squeaky wheel gets priority

RESOURCE ALLOCATION • Resources spread thin over many

projects

SOLVING ISSUES

• Limit work in execution ... so we can do more

• Test to see if we can accept the work

PRIORITIES • Synchronize resource needs across all

projects in work based on buffer signal

RESOURCE ALLOCATION • Resources focused on fewer tasks at a

time, allocated to real need

SOLVING ISSUES • Issues tackled as they move into crisis • Issues raised and identified early and

solved quickly to avoid delays mode, managers overloaded with issues

16

Proj

ect R

esou

rces

& R

equi

rem

ents

Project Lifecycle Process Integration of the lifecycle process of preparing and conducting ARMD research

Pre-Phase A: Advocacy /

Concept Studies MeR

7120 •

Phase A: Concept Development & Requirements Definition

SRR • Phase B:

Preliminary Design

PDR • Phase c:

Detailed Design & Fabrication

CDR • Phase D:

System Integration & Test, Ground Tests

AFSRB

Phase E: Flight Op/ System Op

TB FF • • Phase F:

Closeout / Disposal

Planning Implementation Operation & Closeout

Phase A Network Phase BCD Network

Project Management Board (PMB)

PMB

Phase EF Network

17

Implementation Challenges

• Development of project networks that are simple, execution oriented, and reflect how work should be accomplished

• Changing the way resources are assigned to projects

• Determining how much WIP can be undertaken

• Training personnel to update their tasks daily

• Breaking the habit of multi-tasking

• Concentrating resources on the high priority task

• Customer awareness & buy-in of CCPM

0--- 18

Next Steps

• Improve project network modeling techniques

• Improve early project planning

• Focus on how to continue good resource concentration and flexibility

• Develop interfaces for external reporting

• Integrated CCPM into budget planning process

0--- 19

Conclusions

• Changing the way we do our work is critical for our future

• Results indicate that we can increase our project throughput with same resources

• Implementing CCPM has increased the need for horizontal integration across organization

• Cultural change is a challenge

• CCPM concepts may have broader applicability to other Dryden areas

0--- 20

END

0--- 21

Buffer signal used to synchronize and control

Project 1

Project 2

Project Completion = 50%

Buffer Consumption = 40%

Project Completion = 33%

Buffer Consumption = 50%

Project 2 is eating buffer at a faster rate = Higher priority

22