This week overview - web.stanford.edukunz/Chalmers/W2.pdf · Design for water-free subway box for AWV Good self-assessed coordination between neighbors, DOT, contractor, project manager

This week overview

Day Take-homes

Tuesday Theory: Design organizations as we design bridges: predict, measure and manage

and Wednesday

“hidden” work;ICEPractice: apply ICE methods and slowly Practice: apply ICE methods and slowly develop comfort and competence

Product Organization Process

Design for water-free subway box for AWVGood self-assessed coordination between neighbors, DOT, contractor, project manager Engineering designs finished by 12/31/2007

Design for structurally sound subway boxExchange of project documentation and specifications within 24 hours as needed Construction plans finished by 12/31/2007

Project costs Organization cost Tasks to design all systems and componentsTasks to specify all construction packagesTasks to plan and coordinate utility movement

Environmental impact statement Deputy project director Plan and Coordinate utility movement

Traffic management plan UtilitiesDevelop and deliver engineering design documents

Function: Design intent

Form: Design choices

Final Program Confirmation with

Pharmacology

Final Program confirmation with LAR

KPFF

SRG Lab Task 37 Task 44 Project Mgt AEI Core Task 41 Task26 H Block Crew Task 23SRG / AEI Technical

AEI Core andSRG Lab HDCCO Costing

SRGTechnical KPFF

AEI Core and Tech HDCCO Core

Code RevConsultant Solvent Tar ter

H Block Crew& Tech

SRGLandscape

Tele DataDesign Code Rev

Furniture

26. *Finalize B#13 and B#15

Exiting/architecural H occupancy concept

23. *Reprogram B#13 and B#15

Exterior Architecture

Bookend Programming

Accepted by Genentech

SRG Management AEI Management

Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

Task 29

Task 28Task4 Task22

Review 80% documents

Review skin changes w/db team

Lab Planning Program Meetings with Pharmacology

Lab planning Program Meeting with ProteinChemistry

BMS Controls Meetings (Weekly)

Lab Planning Program meeting with Bio Organic 80% Drawing Review

Tele Data Coordination MeetingsSteel Detailing Meetings

Genentech 80% Detailed Design Review

Final Program Confirmation with Officing

Weekly Coordination

MeetingLab Planning Program Meetings with Directors

MEP, Teledata room design

24. *Complete B13,4 H block occupancy

requirements on MEP systems

(8) *Revise MEP loads, MEP

Equipment

(13,15,16) MEP specs, P&ID's, control sequences

Work Process

Meetings

(6) Coord B13 MEP floor section

*Cal OSHA Recommend Determination of LFFH

*Exterior Programming


23 - 24 June Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 2009

1

Traffic management plan Utilities documentsRelocated utilities Engineering Plan land acquisitionEngineering designs Urban design/Architecture Develop work packages

Secant pile tunnel walls Real EstatePlan transportation access in detail throughout construction

Tunnel box - King to Pike Construction Engineering Develop environmental impact studiesNorth section - Pike to BST Transportation PlanningSouth Section - Holdage to King Environmental

Construction plansConstruction staging planConstruction packages

Risks of leaks self-assessed stakeholder coordination quality Predicted schedule performancePredicted structural deformation Predicted actor backlogs Predicted task backlogsPredicted material costs Predicted actor costs Predicted task costs including material, labor

Observed actor response latencyObserved actor decision latency

Behavior: Analysis predictions

*05-07-01

Finish

37. *Reprogram B#15 Shafts

34. *Finalize Pharmacology

Program

33. *Finalize LAR Program

32. *Finalize Bio-Organic Chemistry Program

35. *Finalize Protein Chemistry

Program 20. *Determine Scope of package D including vivar ium

changes

45. *Complete all Basement/LAR Drawings

41. *Reprogram bookends B#13 and

B#15

36. *Analyze structural impacts

12. *Complete UG utiliites

25. *Do Central Plant design changes

19. *Determine ver tical utilities

22. *Complete catwalk drawings

52. Finalize landscape

*Lab and vivarium

Programming Complete

27. *Finalize B#13, 15 Shaft Size &

MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG

Determine Design $/Time

Impact of

Notice to proceed on structural changes

Architect program/MEP

oncepts Established By Design

Team

29. *Document lab plan

1. *Redesign main MEP distribution systems

5. *Finalize lab & Equipment plans

30. *Approve Change to Design Contract

21. *Prepare Plan Views for Review of Concept w/City

39. *Finalize MEP distr ibution and

section

48. *Develop exiting plan

49. Develop reflected ceiling

plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI

Detailed Design 80 PC Complete

3. Complete Tele Data Design

42. *Develop Execution Strategy

44. *Complete B#14 Officing

Planning

18. *Detailed Lab Program

Documentation

47. *Develop lab DD plan

28. *Determine segregation of lab

and tech space

G accept lab equipment matrix

*Package B structural modifications (CCD3A)

13. *Code Consultants Review Concept for final

city Presentation

14. *HDCCO update Estimate of cost of Program

50. Designate size, location of 13 MEP, teledata rooms

54. KPFF design stairs for 13/1438. *SRG

Reprogram 13/14 interface, exiting,

stairs

43. *Changes in Steel Forwarded to Steel

Detailers

46. *RA Furnture Concept Complete

*Design Budget & Schedule for Changes

Approved

*Notice to proceed with detailed design

17. *Risick reprogram solvent

distribution and waste

Issue 80% MEP CDs

(20) Incorporate 80% MEP review

comments

(19) Genentech review 80% drawings

53. Incorporate comments, complete

Architectural detail

2. Initial redesign MEP branch lateral distribution

G accept 13/14

Interface

*City Accept exiting

*Package C skin

modifications

55. KPFF design stairs for 15/14

40. *SRG Reprogram 15/14 interface, exiting,

stairs

B13 MEP HVAC, conduit, piping mains

completed

MEP 80% Review comments incorporated

Package D and UG addendum issued:

underground utilities, vivar ium catwalk

10. Draft Alternate means

15. Jeff reprogram HMIS

(3) *AEI design MEP HVAC, Conduit & piping mains B13

16. *HDCCO Determine Schedule Impact

City Approval of Alternate Means

for Program

8. Review Alternate Means w/impact on LEL

and LFFH

(21-4) Finalize MEP Details, update specs and p&ID's

Equipment schedules finalized

4. complete all Interior Architcture

51. Designate size, location of 14 MEP, teledata rooms G accept

15/14 Interface

*Accept project scope:budget by Genentech

*City Approval of H Concept

*Turnover lab and vivarium DD plan

to AEI

Notices

• Today (June 23):Today (June 23):– Second reading assessment was due at 10– Org models and ICE theory; ICE sessionOrg models and ICE theory; ICE session– Meet as usual: 10-12; 1-3

• June 24:• June 24: – MACDADI theory; ICE session

M t 10 11 30 1 3 30– Meet 10 – 11:30; 1 – 3:30


2

Q1: Which of the methods below do the papers suggest might help a project team to develop and models in practice today?p p j p p y


3

Q2: Which of the following statements is true about the contents of POP models?true about the contents of POP models?


4

Q3: Which of the following statements is true about “Function – Form – Behavior?about Function Form Behavior?


5

Q4: Which of the following suggestions is appropriate regarding use of POP models?”appropriate regarding use of POP models?


6

Q5: Which of the following statements are true about “breakdown structures?”are true about breakdown structures?


7

Quiz – 1 point distribution

• Mean: 3.5• SD: 1.05

14161820

Frequency

468

101214

Frequency

024

1 2 3 4 5 60 1 2 3 4 5


8

POP – SimVision labs


9

POP and Sim Vision LabPOP and Sim Vision Lab

Johan Geterud

The Ten Most Important Elements Include Physical Elements, Computer Elements and Software, p

Nice use of title as annotation to explain content

6/18/2009 Stanford 11

p

Three Actors; Designer, Manufacturer and Programmer Constitute the OrganizationProgrammer, Constitute the Organization


6/18/2009 Stanford 12

p

Design, Programming and Manufacturing are the Processes Preceeding the Assemblingthe Processes Preceeding the Assembling


6/18/2009 Stanford 13

p

Conformance Objectives Reaching the Highest WeightsHighest Weights

Conformance to ObjectivesObjectives

Notice use of annotation to explain important content

6/18/2009 Stanford 14

Project Time has the Highest Weighted Impact

Project TimeProject Time

Observed Project Time and Backlog


6/18/2009 Stanford 15

Peak Predicted Scheduled Risk has the Highest Weighted AssessmentHighest Weighted Assessment

Quality Risk 75%

Project Time

6/18/2009 Stanford 16

Evaluated Goodness Shows a Fairly Low Meeting of ObjectivesMeeting of Objectives

Goal . Evaluated goodness (high is good)

Evaluated Goodness

100

120

s

Evaluated Goodness

60

80

Eval

uate

d go

odne

s

Option 1: POP Option 2: POP V2

Meets all objectives

20

40

E

j

0Evaluated goodness

Design Versions

6/18/2009 Stanford 17

Organization Consists of Three Positions Working on Design, Manufacturing and Assemblingg , g g

Positions

Processes

6/18/2009 18Stanford

Processes

The Project is Performed in Close To a Month With Manufacturing Driving Most TimeWith Manufacturing Driving Most Time

Manufacturing


Hidden Work Ads 65% Assembling Time Through Mainly CoordinationThrough Mainly Coordination

HiddenWork



Big idea: “Design organizations”

If we design organizations as we design bridges, we can predict measure and manage “hidden” work which makespredict, measure and manage hidden work, which makes projects late if not managed well


Function Scope (…)Quality (…)

Design + Construct

Design + ConstructCosty ( )

Cost (…)Backlog (…)

Schedule (…)Schedule risk (…)

Form Deliverables Actors TasksBehavior Scope

QualityWork (direct, hidden) volumes CostBacklog

Work (direct, hidden) volumesCostStart, Finish, DurationS h d l i k


21

Backlog Schedule risk

Organization Models

Models • How is this i ti “ d?”• Organization

• (Design) work

organization “good?”• Simulation

predictions:process predictions:– Gantt chart– Risks

KPFF


AEI Core andSRG Lab HDCCO Costing SRG

Technical KPFFAEI Core and Tech HDCCO Core Code Rev

Consultant Solvent TarterH Block Crew

& TechSRG

LandscapeTele DataDesign Code Rev

Furniture


Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

Task 28Task4 Task22


Risks, …Final Program

Confirmation with Pharmacology


35. *Finalize


B#15

36. *Analyze structural impacts 22. *Complete catwalk drawings





Bookend Programming




Task 29











Weekly Coordination







Work Process

Meetings





*05-07-01

Finish


Program



Protein Chemistry Program 20. *Determine Scope of

package D including vivarium changes



*Lab and vivarium



MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of



Team





39. *Finalize MEP distribution and

section



plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI





Planning


Documentation



and tech space



city Presentation


50 Designate size location of


Detailers



Approved




Issue 80% MEP CDs


comments


53. Incorporate comments, complete Architectural detail


G accept


*Package C skin

modifications MEP 80% Review comments incorporated


underground utilities, vivarium catwalk





for Program


and LFFH






to AEI

23 - 24 June Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 2009 22




19. *Determine vertical utilities




stairs

G accept 13/14

Interface



stairs


completed



15/14 Interface

Conceptual underpinning: Model

Model Executive

Data system coordination

ProgramsProjectsTasks

Architect,Planning

Electrical, security, Netw orks HVAC, Utilities EHS EORM Client

SRG ArchitecturalFi

PM

Redesign FRC II for Open labs

TasksOrganization Start

Identify pathw ays & op w ork zones for

data/telco systems

Firm

Define EMI separationrequirements

Position1

PrecedenceException reportingCoordination Finish

Coordinate MEP design w /datarequirements

Ow ner approvalIdentify pathw ays & op

w ork zones forHVAC/MEP systems

CoordinationReworkMeetings


23

g

The Challenge of Fast-Track Projects:“Concurrent Engineering” Incurs Large Overheadsg g g

CPM view of traditional project work – Sequential ActivitiesCPM View of Fast-Track Project work—Overlapped Activities

Reality of fast-track project work!

Increased Coordination


24

Increased Rework

Conceptual Underpinning:P j t P I f tiProjects Process Information

The organi ation processes e ceptionsThe organization processes exceptions“Actors”:

D di t k

Position1

• Do direct work• Do hidden work

• CoordinateCoordinate• Rework• Wait

T kTasks:• Have direct work

Have hidden work


25

• Have hidden work

Conceptual Underpinning:Simulate Task work, Information processing:Simulate Task work, Information processing:

• Model

Si l tSimulate

Analyze, Intervene,SW P roject

ManagerData

Architect

CustomerHw Spec Available

Analyze, Intervene, reanalyze

S tart1

Finish

UI-Analysis team

Customerrepresentativ e

Integration team

S W Design coordination

Developspecification

Im plem entdata m odel

Implement analysis system

UI stresstest

Info to Hw

Schedule risk


26

Ready forsystem s test

Im plem ent UI

Integratesytem s

S ystem s integration test

analysis stresstest

Fail to Hw Cost Risk

Backlog

How VDT/SimVision worksE x e c u t iv e

S t a r t

Id e n t if y p a t h w a y s & o p w o r k z o n e s f o r

d a t a /t e lc o s y s t e m s

A r c h it e c t ,P la n n in g

E le c t r ic a l , s e c u r i t y , N e t w o r k s H V A C , U t i li t ie s E H S E O R M C lie n t

S R G A r c h i t e c t u r a lF ir m

P M

D e f in e E M I s e p a r a t io nr e q u ir e m e n t s

C d i t M E P d i /d t

D a t a s y s t e m c o o r d in a t io n

O w n e r l

• Basic simulator functions– Entities: tasks + milestones; activities; meetings;

F in is h

C o o r d in a t e M E P d e s ig n w /d a t ar e q u ir e m e n t s

a p p r o v a lId e n t if y p a t h w a y s & o p w o r k z o n e s f o r

H V A C /M E P s y s t e m s

Entities: tasks + milestones; activities; meetings; project

• Attributes: actor skills, task duration, task complexity, … Relationships:– Relationships:

• Responsibility (actor for task)• Reporting (Supervisor to actor)

S ( k k)• Successor (task to task)• Coordination (task to task - bidirectional) • Rework (task to task – directed)


27

• Stochastic Entity “Micro” behaviors

How VDT/SimVision works S t a r t


d a t a / t e lc o s y s t e m s

A r c h i t e c t ,P la n n in g

E le c t r ic a l , s e c u r i t y , N e t w o r k s H V A C , U t il i t ie s E H S E O R M C lie n t


P M

E x e c u t iv e

D e f in e E M I s e p a r a t io n


• “Discrete event” simulation: Simulator

F in is h

r e q u ir e m e n t s


O w n e r a p p r o v a lId e n t if y p a t h w a y s & o p

w o r k z o n e s f o rH V A C /M E P s y s t e m s

Discrete event simulation: Simulator 1. Start milestone asks first task(s): please start2. Divide task into (~20) subtasks3. Task asks responsible actor: please start work

on (next) subtask1. Actor says OK; tells simulator to wait for predicted

subtask duration2. When actor “reawakened” later, ask “Am I done?”

– Yes: go to (4)– No; I failed: initiate rework; return to (3)– No; I got interrupted: initiate coordination; return to (3)

4. If last subtask competed, ask successor(s) to


28

start; else return to (3)

How VDT/SimVision WorksE x e c u t iv e

S t a r t


d a t a /t e lc o s y s t e m s

A r c h it e c t ,P la n n in g

E le c t r ic a l , s e c u r i t y , N e t w o r k s H V A C , U t i li t ie s E H S E O R M C lie n t


P M

D e f in e E M I s e p a r a t io nr e q u ir e m e n t s

C d i t M E P d i /d t


O w n e r l

• Stochastic Entity “Micro” behaviors– Task duration up (down) with actor skill(high low)

F in is h


a p p r o v a lId e n t if y p a t h w a y s & o p w o r k z o n e s f o r

H V A C /M E P s y s t e m s

Task duration up (down) with actor skill(high, low)– Task coordination and rework probabilities up

(down) with actor skill (high, low)– Task coordination and rework probability up

(down) with task complexity (high, low)– …

• Simulator has precedence to sequence application of multiple µ-behaviors


29

application of multiple µ-behaviors

Predicted project Cost Breakdown

P di t dPredictedDirect work

A d OK• Assumed OK….

Hidden workRework

• Maybe “light”Coordination• May be large


30

Wait: no value add

Predicted Schedule Risks

Risks assuming staffRisks assuming staff, task definition interventionsinterventions

Predicted SchedulePredicted Schedule risk = Simulated –CPM (Optimistic) ( p )Durations


31

Predicted actor backlog

• Backlog = work• Backlog = work left to do at the end of the dayRisks

– Schedule– CoordinationCoordination – Product, process

quality control

Principals need to• Principals need to manage workload


32

Predicted position resource utilization


33

Tuesday June 23

Plus Delta• 3 screens• POP introduction

• Computer broken• Use all 6 screensPOP introduction

• Switch screens while talking

Use all 6 screens• Hard to see right

screeng• Stories (Swedish)• Influence – cost

• Hard to hear in backInfluence cost curve

• Plus delta processp

Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 2009 3423 - 24 June

Big IdeaType-of

• Design and analyze organizations as we d i d l b iddesign and analyze bridges

• Organization analysis allows predicting the volume and distribution of total, direct and hidden work ⇒– Project and task durations– Actor backlogs & task risks


Pharmacology


KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture




Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

Task 29

Task 28Task4 Task22










Weekly Coordination




requirements on MEP

Work Process

Meetings

(6) Coord B13 MEP



Accepted by Genentech– Actor backlogs & task risks– Coordination, rework wait time that

make projects late and participants k d d f t t d

*05-07-01

Finish

37


Program




Program 20. *Determine Scope of package D including vivarium

changes


B#15







*Lab and vivarium



MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of

Bookend Programming





Team







section



plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI





Planning


Documentation



and tech space




city Presentation





stairs


Detailers



Approved


systems



Issue 80% MEP CDs


comments





G accept 13/14

Interface


*Package C skin

modifications



stairs


completed








for Program


and LFFH








15/14 Interface




to AEI

overworked and frustrated 37. *Reprogram B#15 Shafts





35Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 200923 - 24 June

Method

• Design the organization g gmodel using the OBS and Organization segment of the g gPOP model


Pharmacology


KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture




Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

Task 29

Task 28Task4 Task22










Weekly Coordination




requirements on MEP

Work Process

Meetings

(6) Coord B13 MEP




*05-07-01

Finish

37


Program





changes


B#15







*Lab and vivarium



MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of

Bookend Programming





Team







section



plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI





Planning


Documentation



and tech space




city Presentation





stairs


Detailers



Approved


systems



Issue 80% MEP CDs


comments





G accept 13/14

Interface


*Package C skin

modifications



stairs


completed








for Program


and LFFH








15/14 Interface




to AEIType-of






Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 200923 - 24 June

Breakdown structures in VDC

ProductBreakdown

Product Component types DescribeBreakdown

Structure (PBS)Major types of

Describe Physical elementsSystemsScomponents Spaces

Relate (implicitly) to OBS, WBS

Breakdown structuresType-of

Breakdown structuresHierarchicalRelate to each otherTypes, not instances



OrganizationBreakdown

Organization component Breakdown Structure (OBS)

Major types of

types Describe Actors

Designorganization components

gConstructionOther stakeholders

Relate (implicitly) to PBS, WBS





Process (Work) Breakdown

Process (Work) component types D ib t kBreakdown

Structure (WBS)Major types of

Describe tasksDesignConstruction

tasks OtherRelate (explicitly) to OBS, WBS




Implicit in BSs, POP

• BSs (and hence POP models) do not (but models do) represent:models do) represent:– Attributes

• Product: dimensions, cost, materials, …• Actor: size, experience, skills available, …• Task: size, complexity, skills needed, …

– Relationships amongp g• Product elements: supports, enclosed-by, adjacency• Actors: reports-to, responsibility• Tasks: precedence, coordination, reworkp , ,• Product Elements ⇔ Organization actors ⇔ Process tasks


Implicit in BSs, POP

• BSs (and hence POP models) do not (but i li d d l d ) tspecialized models do) represent:

– Discipline applications• Product model• Organization – Process model

P l h d l• Process plan or schedule

Type-of


Big Ideas

• Design the organization model using the OBS and Organization segment of theOBS and Organization segment of the POP model

• Organization analysis allows predicting the volume and distribution of hidden work: thevolume and distribution of hidden work: the coordination and rework that make projects late and cause staff frustration and burnout

• Organization analysis allows predicting theFinal Program

Confirmation with Pharmacology


KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture




Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

Task 29

Task 28Task4 Task22










Weekly Coordination




requirements on MEP

Work Process

Meetings

(6) Coord B13 MEP



Accepted by Genentech• Organization analysis allows predicting the volume and distribution of total, direct and hidden work ⇒– Project and task durations

*05-07-01

Finish

37


Program





changes


B#15







*Lab and vivarium



MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of

Bookend Programming





Team







section



plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI





Planning


Documentation



and tech space




city Presentation





stairs


Detailers



Approved


systems



Issue 80% MEP CDs


comments





G accept 13/14

Interface


*Package C skin

modifications



stairs


completed








for Program


and LFFH








15/14 Interface




to AEI

– Project and task durations– Actor backlogs & task risks– Coordination and rework effort that

make projects late and participants






make projects late and participants overworked and frustrated


Organization Models

• ModelO i ti

• How “good” is this Organization – Process• Organization

• (Design) work process

Organization – Process design?

• Simulation predictions:– Gantt chart– Risks, …

KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture


Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

Task 28Task4 Task22



Pharmacology


35. *Finalize


B#15

36. *Analyze structural impacts 22. *Complete catwalk drawings





Bookend Programming




Task 29











Weekly Coordination







Work Process

Meetings





*05-07-01

Finish


Program



Protein Chemistry Program 20. *Determine Scope of

package D including vivarium changes



*Lab and vivarium



MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of



Team






section



plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI





Planning


Documentation



and tech space



city Presentation


50 Designate size location of


Detailers



Approved




Issue 80% MEP CDs


comments


53. Incorporate comments, complete Architectural detail


G accept


*Package C skin

modifications MEP 80% Review comments incorporated







for Program


and LFFH






to AEI








stairs

G accept 13/14

Interface



stairs


completed



15/14 Interface


Conceptual framework: ModelSimulator simulates actors doing tasksSimulator simulates actors doing tasks

Model Executive

Data system coordination

ProgramsProjectsTasks

Architect,Planning

Electrical, security, Netw orks HVAC, Utilities EHS EORM Client

SRG ArchitecturalFi

PM

Redesign FRC II for Open labs

TasksOrganization Start

Identify pathw ays & op w ork zones for

data/telco systems

Firm

Define EMI separationrequirements

Position1

PrecedenceException reportingCoordination Finish

Coordinate MEP design w /datarequirements

Ow ner approvalIdentify pathw ays & op

w ork zones forHVAC/MEP systems

CoordinationReworkMeetingsg


Organization Optionsg p

• Any two goals look attainable – Duration; Cost (staff); Organization process quality

Legend Meets Goal Almost meets Unmet goal Goalg

Case Sim Finish Time Sim Cost (K$) Risk Comment*Contractor increase staff 3/21/01 244 0.515 Not feasibleAll staff FT 4/16/01 252 0.56 Very difficult for other projects50% Design review/meetings 5/7/01 353 0.48 Force quick owner decisionsShorten 50% review tasks 5/21/01 384 0.42 Encourage quick owner decisionsJohn Q. Full Time 6/6/01 311 0.525 John Q. plus Gary FTJohn H. Part Time 6/21/01 324 0.545 John H. plus Gary FTDon S. Full Time 8/5/01 321 0.56 Don S. plus Gary FTGary S. Full Time 10/4/01 335 0.485 Split Contractor Tasks 10/19/01 257 0.5 Add contractor resourcesGary, Amy 50% 10/22/01 251 0.395y, y / /Baseline 12/11/01 350 0.515


Evaluation of Schedule goalg

To achieve feasible schedule• Most staff available Full time• Do 50% design review by meetings, vs. tasks

Sim Finish Time

/ /12/25/01

2/13/02

2/28/014/19/01

6/8/017/28/019/16/0111/5/01

Fini

sh D

ate

10/1/0011/20/00

1/9/01

rease

staff

All staf

f FT

w/mee

tings

view ta

sks

QFull

Time

Part Ti

meS

Full Tim

eS

Full Tim

ecto

r Tas

ksAmy 5

0%Bas

eline

46*Con

tracto

r incre Al

50% D

esign

revie

w/

Shorte

n 50%

rev

John

Q. F

John

H. P

Don S

. FGary

S. F

Split C

ontra

ctGary

, A B

Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 200923 - 24 June Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 2009 46

Evaluation of Budget goalg g

To achieve feasible budgetCases with acceptable schedule

P di t d St ff C t (K$)Predicted Staff Cost (K$)

300350400450

050

100150200250300

0

tracto

r incre

ase s

taff

Gary, A

my 50%

All staf

f FT

plit C

ontra

ctor T

asks

John

Q. F

ull Ti

me

Don S

. Full

Time

John

H. P

art Ti

me

Gary S

. Full

Time

Baseli

ne

sign r

eview

/mee

tings

en 50

% revie

w task

s

47

*Con

tra Spli

50% D

esig

Shorte

n


Evaluation of risk goal

To achieve feasible organization process qualityCases with acceptable scheduleC ith t bl

Risk

Cases with acceptable budget

0 3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

% s s e s ff e e e T e

Gary, A

my 50%

Shorte

n 50%

revie

w task

s

% Des

ign re

view/m

eetin

gs

Gary S

. Full

Time

Split C

ontra

ctor T

asks

*Con

tracto

r incre

ase s

taff

Baseli

ne

John

Q. F

ull Ti

me

John

H. P

art Ti

meAll s

taff F

T

Don S

. Full

Time

Sh50

% *C


Comparing Project Schedule Risksp g j

Risks assuming staffRisks assuming staff, task definition interventionsinterventions

Predicted Schedule risk = Simulated –CPM (Optimistic) Durations


Tabular results

• Program Stats• Program Stats• Project Stats• Task Stats• Organization

Stats• Milestone Stats• Position Stats

Copy and paste to Excelto Excel


Executive Dashboard

• Shows evaluation of predicted behaviorShows evaluation of predicted behavior (finish date, revenue, cost, quality, backlog) | Goalsbacklog) | Goals


SimVision

• DescribeF F d B f O i ti d l– F,F and B of Organization and process plus relationships within and between each

• Explain (“why”): n/ap ( y )• Evaluate: which organization – process

design version(s) satisfies stated i t (E ti D hb d)requirements (Executive Dashboard);

• Predict:Actor Backlogs task schedule dates actor and– Actor Backlogs, task schedule dates, actor and task effort, actor and task risks (charts)


Representation of Organization and ProcessProduct Form Weight

Requirement

Relationshi(sum

=

Function Qualitative Threshhold values Behaviors

– Functions:• POP SimVision

Object AttributeRelationshi

p Requirement Choice Predicted Observed Assessed -2 -1 0 1 2 100)Product

Product Scope

Requirement

Relationship

Functional Requirement

Product Form (Space, System)

Product Scope . Systems includes Systems Systems ?o ?a ?wProduct Scope . Building Spaces includes Spaces Spaces ?o ?a ?wProject GoalsProject Goal . Capacity (people) >= - ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?wProject Goal . Evaluated goodness ?o ?a

Organization Scope

Requirement

Relationship

Functional Requirement

Organization Form (Actor)

Organization Scope . Actors includes ActorsOrganization GoalsOrganization Goal . Predicted . Cost (K$) <= ?r ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?wProcess

Process Scope (Task Action: Object) Responsible Actor Process Form (Task

Action: Object)Process Task . Design: Building Actor Actor that designs Task . Design: Building

ProcessTask . Predict: Predictable Behaviors Actor Actor that predicts

Task . Predict: Predictable Behaviors

Process Task . Assess: Behaviors Actor Actor that assessesTask . Assess:

BehaviorsProcess Task . Build: Building Actor Actor that builds Task . Build: BuildingProcess GoalsProcess Goal Peak Quality Risk < ?r ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?w

Organization

POP SimVision• Represent threshold values and result of evaluating

predicted results in MACDADI– Forms/Scope

S tart1

Finish

S W ProjectManager

DataArchitect

UI-Analysis team

Custom errepresentativ e

Integration team

SW Design coordination

Dev elopspecification


Im plem ent analys is system

UI s tresstest

Hw Spec Available

Info to Hw

Process Goal . Peak Quality Risk < ?r ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?w0 0Sum (weights):Sum (Assessed goodness):

S tart1

S W ProjectManager

DataArchitect

UI-Analysis team

Custom errepresentativ e

Integration team

SW Design coordination

Dev elop

Hw Spec Available

Info to HwForms/Scope• POP SimVision

– BehaviorsSi Vi i di t i th ti ll f d d


Im plem ent U I

Integratesytem s


analys is stresstest

Fail to Hw


Finish

specification


Im plem ent U I

Integratesytem s


Im plem ent analys is system

UI s tresstest

analys is stresstest

Fail to Hw

• SimVision predicts using theoretically-founded, model-based methods POP

• EvaluationSimVision evaluates design performance | Functional– SimVision evaluates design performance | Functional goals MACDADI

– You can use MACDADI to define a broader goal set


SimVision methods

• Design options: – Create new Case for each option– Suggestion: Make one intervention per case

Compare case results in Executive Dashboard– Compare case results in Executive Dashboardand charts of result comparisons


SimVision methods

• Possible Interventions – Change:– Task definition– Task precedence

T k St t t t t l– Task Start-to-start lag– Actor size

Actor task assignment– Actor – task assignment– Actor skills

Goals– Goals

CasesCases


Virtual Design and Constructiong

• Use of multi-disciplinary • Organization modelsp yperformance models of design–construction projects

Organization models in VDC– Each discipline has p j

– Product (building)– Organization – Work Process

pan organization, work processAll disciplines mustWork Process

• To– Visualize and describe

project

– All disciplines must coordinate!

– Assuming:project– Analyze project

performance– Predict effects of choices

g– Simulate model:

Predict effects of choices– Evaluate choices


(Multiple) Predictable performance objectives• Safety: 0 lost hours

l l dy

Schedule, Cost, Scope: 100% client satisfaction • Sustainability: 10-20% better than previous recent jobs Outcomes

Schedule: 95% on-time start, finish of all scheduled activitiesC t 95% f b d t d it ithi 2% f b d t d t

Directly related to Organization Model

• Cost: >= 95% of budgeted items within 2% of budgeted costField material delivery: 95% within 24 hours of useDecision latency (Decision-making promptness): mean working days <= 1; 95% within 2 daysyResponse latency (Decision-making no earlier than necessary): mean working days <= 1; 95% within 2 daysField-generated Requests for Information: 0 (for questions related to issues that could have been identified at the award of the construction contract)could have been identified at the award of the construction contract) Rework volume: 0 (for field construction work); Goal = 10-20% (virtual work)Meeting effectiveness: > 90% participationMeeting efficiency: > 70% prediction, evaluation Drivers – Measurable processScope: POP designs; objectives to manageModeled and managed Scope: 100% of POP items with > 10 (2)% of time, cost, effort or energyCoordination activity: planned, explicit, public, informed > 90%Coordination activity: planned, explicit, public, informed 90%Prediction basis: > 80% of predictions foundedDesign versions: 2 or more >= 80% Controllable


Big IdeaType-of

• Design and analyze organizations as we d i d l b iddesign and analyze bridges

• Organization analysis allows predicting the volume and distribution of total, direct and hidden work ⇒– Project and task durations– Actor backlogs & task risks


Pharmacology


KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture




Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

Task 29

Task 28Task4 Task22










Weekly Coordination




requirements on MEP

Work Process

Meetings

(6) Coord B13 MEP



Accepted by Genentech– Actor backlogs & task risks– Coordination, rework wait time that

make projects late and participants k d d f t t d

*05-07-01

Finish

37


Program





changes


B#15







*Lab and vivarium



MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of

Bookend Programming





Team







section



plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI





Planning


Documentation



and tech space




city Presentation





stairs


Detailers



Approved


systems



Issue 80% MEP CDs


comments





G accept 13/14

Interface


*Package C skin

modifications



stairs


completed








for Program


and LFFH








15/14 Interface




to AEI

overworked and frustrated 37. *Reprogram B#15 Shafts






SimVision mechanics

• Tree view• Tree view• Object view• Project modelProject model• Simulate!• Control buttons


SimVision object hierarchy

1 File1.File2.Case (version)3 Program3.Program

Projects1.Tasks2 Positions2.Positions3.Meetings4.Milestones5 Connections5.Connections

4.Milestones5.Organizations


60

g

Big idea: “Design organizations”

If we design organizations as we design bridges, we can predict measure and manage “hidden” work which makespredict, measure and manage hidden work, which makes projects late if not managed well


Function Scope (…)Quality (…)

Design + Construct

Design + ConstructCosty ( )

Cost (…)Backlog (…)

Schedule (…)Schedule risk (…)

Form Deliverables Actors TasksBehavior Scope

QualityWork (direct, hidden) volumes CostBacklog

Work (direct, hidden) volumesCostStart, Finish, DurationS h d l i k


61

Backlog Schedule risk

The Big Idea

• Integrated Concurrent Engineering is aIntegrated Concurrent Engineering is a technology-assisted social process that allows very rapid creation of multi-allows very rapid creation of multidisciplinary performance models of project products, organizations and p oject p oducts, o ga at o s a dprocesses


62

Integrated Concurrent Engineering BackgroundBackground

Given Performance change• Goal = “extreme collaboration”

(1 week)Excellent POP software

Latency (secs)

• Excellent POP software• Collocated team• iRoom X

C

od onal

Latency(secs)

0200004000060000

iRoom • Good generic POP model• SD (DD) phase

Goo

tradi

tio

Duration( ) p

Good traditional100150200250300

23 - 24 June Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 2009 63Duration (days)

XC

Good traditional

050

100

The big idea of ICE

• ICE obviously works (e.g., NASA)(T t ti l ) fi d C t ll bl f t• (Tentatively) we find Controllable factors

• Excellent modeling and simulation• Shared project model• Closed K-net• …

⇒ Observed process performance:⇒ Observed process performance:• Very Short latency (~<= 2 minutes)

⇒ Predicted and observed outcomes:Coordination among actors (aggregate + b position)• Coordination among actors (aggregate + by position)

• Rework (aggregate + by position) • Short schedule


64

ICE enabling factorsAll required at a high level of performanceAll required at a high level of performance

• Design staff focus: 100% available• Modeling & Visualization Tools: Specific & Strategic• Modeling & Visualization Tools: Specific & Strategic• Information Network of designers: Closed• Communication Media Richness and Fidelity: Richy• Structure Independence: High• Organizational Hierarchy: Flat

G l C Hi h• Goal Congruence: High• Process equivocality: Low• Integrated Conceptual Models: Semantically richteg ated Co ceptua ode s Se a t ca y c• Social Network Topology: Pooled• Computer Applications Network Topology: Scaled


65

• Design subtask duration: Less than 10 minutes

ICE exercise

• Things to note:Things to note:• Discipline specialty: how does it work

for novices?for novices?• POP deliverable: how helpful is it?

?• Next steps: clear? More or less clear with same effort and traditional

h d ?methods?


66

The big idea of ICE

The Big Ideas:The Big Ideas:• Team-X obviously works (e.g., NASA)• It works because it achieves exceptionally short

information latency and short task durations, reliably.

• Multiple factors enable ICE to work• Multiple factors enable ICE to work.

Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 2009

6723 - 24 June

Integrated Concurrent Engineering at JPL

• Integrated Collaborative Engineering (ICE)– Collocated Organization

Photo thanks to JPL

– Excellent Technical Infrastructure– Formal Goal Metrics– Informal Process and CultureInformal Process and Culture– Closed Knowledge Network


Integrated Concurrent Engineering at StanfordStanford

• Integrated Collaborative Engineering (ICE)g g g ( )– Collocated Organization– Advanced Technical Infrastructure– Formal Goal Metrics– Informal Process and Culture

Cl d K l d N t k– Closed Knowledge Network


Observations

Team-X characteristics• Organization: Multiple stations (~18)• Process: careful design

T h l• Technology: – Multiple shared display screens– Shared database (Icemaker)


Agenda

Fundamental mechanismsFundamental mechanisms– Short Latency, task durations– Enabling factorsEnabling factors


Coordination Latency

• Response latency = Time from a designer posing a question to receipt of a useful answer

• Decision latency = Time from receiving useful information to making a decision with itinformation to making a decision with it

• Good engineering practice for both: 2 daysGood e g ee g p ac ce o bo days– weeks typical

• Measurable ICE Goal for latency: minutes, reliably– For and as assessed by all intended stakeholders


Simple analysis of Latency

Traditional ICE (Team-X)• Project requires

100 “queries” per engineer @ Latency = 2 days (good!)

• Project requires 100 “queries” per engineer @ Latency = 1 minute 100 d li l i id b

@ y y (g )100 modeling, analysis, meeting “tasks” @ task durations < 2 days

100 modeling, analysis, sidebar “tasks” @ task durations ~8 minutes

Project duration ~ 2 calendar Project duration ~ 200 calendar days (typical)Latency paces schedule

jdays (Team-X)Direct work (modeling + analysis + documentation)

h d l (T X)(typical)Not direct work

paces schedule (Team-X), Not coordination latency


ICE requires latency management

• Latency extends schedulesI t d d t t k h i t i f ti t– Interdependent tasks have incessant information requests

– Requests have response delays (latency)– Latency adds no value, measures collaborative waste

• Integrated Concurrent Engineering dramatically cuts time and• Integrated Concurrent Engineering dramatically cuts time and latency– Reduces latency from days to minutes– Direct work tasks must run in minutes– Enables radically decreased project duration– Researchers, practitioners report improved cost, quality– Requires high reliability (> 99%) latency: one major latency source

jeopardizes project success – New organizational form


How ICE (Team-X) works

• ManageManage – Time to do direct work

• Model, analyze, decide, explain• Requires highly skilled engineers with excellent tools that

they know well

– Coordination LatencyCoordination Latency• Time for a designer to obtain usable information• Requires many enabling factors

M bl bj i f f l ICE• Measurable objectives for successful ICE: 1. Time to model, analyze < 10 minutes (> 99% reliability) 2. Latency < = 1 minute (> 99% reliability)2. Latency < 1 minute (> 99% reliability)


ICE Enabling Factors(Committed)Organization

(Dynamic) Process

(Visual)Technologyg gy

Closed knowledge network

Low process equivocality

Excellent discipline-Specific Modeling, Visualization ToolsVisualization Tools

Focused design staff High structure independence

Rich communications media

Flat organization structure

Pooledcommunications

Integrated database

Egalitarian cultureg

High goal congruence


Organization Enabling factor: Closed Knowledge networkOrganization Process Technology



Excellent discipline-Specific Modeling

g

• Objective: Closed

network equivocality Specific Modeling, Visualization Tools





Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: Closed• Meaning: Requisite knowledge, procedures,

options, and authority are immediatelyoptions, and authority are immediately available in the room (almost always)

• Risk factors: call outs; unanswered callouts• Team-X Methods:

– Heavy reliance on collaborative design sessionsD i ll ti d i i– Designer collocation during sessions

– Careful participants selection and training – Pre-plan to identify needed participantsPre plan to identify needed participants


Organization Enabling factor: Design staff focusOrganization Process Technology




g

• Objective: 100% available during meetings






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: 100% available during meetings• Meaning: Design session participants focus

exclusively on project work during designexclusively on project work during design sessions

• Risk factors: Designers have other responsibilities during design sessions, so team waits for expertise

• Team X Methods:• Team-X Methods:– Management support of focus – Short sessions make enable managers to free g

valued staff23 - 24 June Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 2009 78

Organization Enabling factor: Hierarchy structureOrganization Process Technology




y

Objecti e Flat






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: Flat• Meaning: Minimal required decision-making

structure and overheadstructure and overhead• Risk factors: Soliciting management approval

challenges short latencychallenges short latency• Team-X Methods:

– No managers– No managers– Culture of autonomy and respect– One facilitator


Organization Enabling factor: Egalitarian cultureOrganization Process Technology




g

• Objective: Egalitarian






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: Egalitarian• Meaning: Positions assume empowered

decision-making and low managementdecision making and low management overhead

• Risk factors: Soliciting management approval challenges short latency

• Team-X Methods:C lt f t d t– Culture of autonomy and respect

– Careful recruitment – Decisions and decision processes highly visible toDecisions and decision processes highly visible to

all23 - 24 June Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 2009 80

Organization Enabling factor: Goal CongruenceOrganization Process Technology




g

• Objective: Highly congruent






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: Highly congruent• Meaning: participants know and aspire to

same goals and methodssame goals and methods• Risk factors: positions debate priorities or

methods• Team-X Methods:

– Discuss goals and methods at session start F ilit t tt ti– Facilitator attention

– Culture of congruence – Analysis and decisions very visible to allAnalysis and decisions very visible to all


Process Enabling factor: Process equivocalityOrganization Process Technology




q y

• Objective: Low






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: Low• Meaning: all participants understand and accept procedures and

goals Implies that method applies only to well understood processes– Implies that method applies only to well-understood processes

• Risk factors: positions ask for and wait for facilitator decisions• Team-X Methods:• Use only for well-understood processes

– Pre-plan for process clarity– Culture of autonomy – Analysis and decisions very visible to all– Excellent process facilitator


Process Enabling factor: Structure independenceOrganization Process Technology




p

• Objective: High






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: High• Meaning: Design tasks are distinct, positions all

understand their responsibilities and can proceed ith i i l t i htwith minimal management oversight

• Risk factors: positions solicit or wait for facilitator decisions

• Team-X Methods:– Use only for projects that allow independence– Pre-plan for independencePre plan for independence – Staff selection and training– Culture of autonomy – Analysis and decisions very visible to all– Analysis and decisions very visible to all


Process Enabling factor: Coordination TopologyOrganization Process Technology




p gy

Objecti e Pooled






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: Pooled• Meaning: Participants resolve problems in

small self formed groupssmall self-formed groups • Risk factors: Formal or inflexible coordination

requirementsrequirements• Team-X Methods:

– Collocation– Collocation – Shared projection screens – Sidebar culture


Technology Enabling factor: Modeling, Visualization ToolsOrganization Process Technology




g,

• Objective: Excellent






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: Excellent• Meaning: Discipline-specific tools allow all

positions to do direct work very fastpositions to do direct work very fast• Risk factors: Manual design activities or poor

tools bottleneck schedule; Other designers fail to understand a model

• Team-X Methods:M d li i li ti l i d d i i– Modeling, visualization, analysis and decision support tools enable all critical path tasks

– High team experience


Technology Enabling factor: Communications MediaOrganization Process Technology




• Objective: Rich






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: Rich• Meaning: Shared and personal, visual, multi-

disciplinary, showing functional requirements, design p y, g q , gchoices and predicted behaviors

• Risk factors: Slow process to describe models, explain rationale evaluate choices make predictionsexplain rationale, evaluate choices, make predictions, create alternatives

• Team-X Methods:– Mature modeling and analysis tools– Personal workstations

Shared “iRoom” displays– Shared iRoom displays


Technology Enabling factor: DatabaseOrganization Process Technology




• Objective: Integrated






Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Objective: Integrated• Meaning: Discipline-specific models all access

and store shared data easilyand store shared data easily• Risk factors: data reentry, missing shared data• Team-X Methods:

– Develop good shared generic (POP) model ontology – Applications have developed uniform semantics for

shared datashared data– Data visualization in Excel– Designated position assures consistencyg p y


ICE Enabling factors: so what?Organization Process Technology

Cl d k l d L E ll t di i li

• Necessity: excellent ICE performance requires all



Excellent discipline-Specific Modeling, Visualization Tools





Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


Necessity: excellent ICE performance requires allfactors to work well

• Sufficiency: No one factor sufficesE l id (CEE 111/211) f it• Early evidence (CEE 111/211) of necessity, sufficiency of these factors (from observations or theoretically-founded simulation)

• Process and team experience are crucial, so understanding factors may help understand how to change Team-X tog– Make specific improvements– Replicate Team-X (in less than 10 years it to create it)


Big idea: so what?Organization Process Technology

Cl d k l d L E ll t di i liClosed knowledge network







Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


• Understanding ICE may help Team-X to– Make specific improvementsMake specific improvements– Replicate Team-X (in less than the 10

years it to create it)y )• Understanding ICE may help CEE to

– Implement ICE appropriate– Implement ICE appropriate– Replicate Team-X (in less than the 10

years it to create it)years it to create it)


Why is it hard to determine fundamental enablers of ICE?Organization Process Technology

Cl d k l d L E ll t di i li

• Very hard to understand culture from








Integrated database

Egalitarian culture


Very hard to understand culture from within

• Many factors appear to characterize• Many factors appear to characterize ICE, so no single view or theory appliesTeam X is like a company not a lab:• Team-X is like a company, not a lab: – It needs to do work project-by-project

I i i k f– Instrumenting poses risk to performance

23 - 24 June23 - 24 June Chalmers Virtual Design Class (c) 2009 90

ICE charrette (class on 23 June)

• Task: Design your project • Deliverables

Session Roles• Owner: Presents1. Owner specification: functions

2. Product design 3D sketch(s), PBS + assembly instructions

3 Organization model and org

• Owner: Presents project model

• Product designer + 3. Organization model and org

chart; OBS4. Process model, WBS, Gantt

chart for development

gassembly instructions

• Organization & Process modeler5. POP model and P, O, P detail

6. Presentation of your model• Budget

Process modeler • POP modeler• Cost estimation

– 90 minutes for ICE charrette– 30 minutes for presentations

• Groups of ~7T d 2 l i

Cost estimation• Facilitator


• Try to do 2 alternatives

Documents

This week overview - web.stanford.edukunz/Chalmers/W2.pdf · Design for water-free subway box for AWV Good self-assessed coordination between neighbors, DOT, contractor, project manager