Critical Chain
Critical Chain
Critical Chain
A fresh look at project management by Eliyahu Goldratt Claimed to do for Project Management what The Goal did for Process Mgmt Reported Successes include
Israeli Aircraft - Turnaround from 3 months to 2 weeks
http://www.goldratt.com/tocsuc.htm
Session[s] Objectives
Review ideas in Critical Chain Discuss
Do we agree with Goldratt? Which of the ideas can we adopt here?
Action Plan
How?
R. Barnes, 1998
Assumptions
General Familiarity with Project Management Concepts
Scope, organization GANTT Charts, PERT, Critical Path, Resources, Resource levelling Slack, Early/late finish Work-in-Progress
Earned Value (BCWP etc)
Critical Chain
Key concept - A different way of Using project buffers, and handling uncertainty
R. Barnes, 1998
Critical Path
B A D
Available Manpower
R. Barnes, 1998
Available Manpower
R. Barnes, 1998
Both of these are the COMMON PRACTICE According to Critical Chain theyre BOTH WRONG R. Barnes, 1998
Issue 1 - estimates
Task will take 5 days What does this mean?
Will take on average 5 days? 50% probability that it will complete in 5 days? Almost certainly (80%? 90%?) will complete in 5 days?
R. Barnes, 1998
Probability Curve
Where are you going to put this line?
Almost certainly estimates contain substantial buffers Most workers are unaware of this, and cant tell you How much buffer is allowed? Even if they could, theyd be too suspicious of your motives to tell you
R. Barnes, 1998
Job 2 (Wkr B)
Job 4 (Wkr B)
Delay in any one gets passed on Early finish of others doesnt help (No surprises here)
Job 3 (Wkr C)
R. Barnes, 1998
R. Barnes, 1998
Job 1 (Wkr A)
Job 2 (Wkr B)
Job 3 (Wkr C)
Job 4 (Wkr B)
The simple maths answer (20) is invariably optimistic. Experienced Project leaders add their own fudge factors
5 + 5 = 13
Yet we have already seen that each estimate has substantial safety Why do we have to add more? R. Barnes, 1998
Non-critical Jobs
Result: Delays are passed on in full Advances are usually wasted. R. Barnes, 1998
Late Early
2 days Another Job (Wkr B) Job 1 (Wkr A) 5 days
R. Barnes, 1998
Safest - BUT Loss of Focus (thinking about unimportant task) Parkinsons Law will apply to AnotherJob (WkrB not busy)
Job 2 (Wkr B)
Parkinsons Law
Predicted effect? Reading 2 Worker must slow down or make work to look busy
Worker is undercommitted
R. Barnes, 1998
We need a miracle!
R. Barnes, 1998
The Miracle
1. Use an approach to scheduling and logistics that protects us from Murphys Law. 2. Have people focus on Global improvements rather than Local ones. 3. Have everyone understands and accepts the policies, procedures, and measurements that apply to them. 4. Believe that we can make dramatic improvements. R. Barnes, 1998
Make projects on time Try to make tasks on time Produce more projects Try to make people more efficient Shrink Project Times Try to shrink task times Projects within Budget Detailed risk analysis Customer satisfaction Make more detailed specifications
R. Barnes, 1998
R. Barnes, 1998
D (Prerequisite)
Dont pad task times
A (Objective)
Maximize Profits
Conflict!
D (Prerequisite)
Pad task times
C (Requirement)
Give Reliable commitment dates
Assumption Short quoted lead times are important for customers Safety increases lead times significantly Customers care about commitment dates Profitability depends on customer satisfaction There are statistical fluctuations and unanticipated problems We must deal with uncertainty by padding task times R. Barnes, 1998 All tasks needsafety time
D (Prerequisite)
Dont pad individual task times
A (Objective)
Maximize Profits
C (Requirement)
Give Reliable commitment dates
D (Prerequisite)
Put in aggregate buffers
Key Concepts
Any conflict can be diagrammed explicitly There are hidden assumptions behind any conflict that can be challenged Conflict between more and less WIP can be resolved through buffers Buffers are not optional
R. Barnes, 1998
R. Barnes, 1998
Add Buffers
Identify buffer points
Decide on buffer sizes. Perhaps
Project Buffer - 1/2 project (= 1/2 padding saved) Feeding Buffers - 1/2 feed path (= 1/2 padding
saved)
R. Barnes, 1998
Cost vs Throughput
What if we used excess capacity to sell below cost?
See Page 3
Example illustrates
Local solutions can be sub-optimal Throughput is Number 1(Ichiban)
Not lowest cost, but best value!
R. Barnes, 1998
Possible Levers
Earlier delivery/Response time Higher quality Due-date performance Image Features and Options All of these may be preferable to Lowest cost What does the customer value?
R. Barnes, 1998
Variation
Select the leverage point(s) Exploit the leverage point(s) Subordinate everything else to the above decisions Elevate the leverage points Evaluate whether the leverage point should change
Avoid excessive chop&change of focus Concentrate on best-payoff leverage points
R. Barnes, 1998
TOC Accounting
Throughput pricing
Standard pricing may lead to wrong results Use a pricing model that focuses on the constraint
Reading 9
R. Barnes, 1998
Multiple Projects
Single-project scheduling works well, even in multiple-project environments, if
Individual projects practically independent
eg, contractors used
How?
Approach 1. Plan projects together.
very tricky in a complicated environment
Critical chain keeps changing Lots of detail
Conclusion
It aint easy!!
No clear answer!! My opinion - Suggest we concentrate on Miracle 1 (Critical Chain), get familiar with this before going the next step to Global View
R. Barnes, 1998
What is a schedule?
(Reading 10) What is the schedule designed to accomplish? Maximise throughput
get as many projects completed as possible
The worker needs Start times for jobs with no predecessors (gating tasks) Relative priority if alternatives Who gets the work next ? Approximately when next job is coming, and what it is How urgent (also task description/requirements)
R. Barnes, 1998
Task durations
becomes self-fulfilling
R. Barnes, 1998
Resource Manager needs When tasks are late or early, and by how much How important is this
impact on the buffer
R. Barnes, 1998
Weak Links
NIH (Not Invented Here) SEP (Someone Elses Problem) Boundless Optimism Milestones Good Enough
R. Barnes, 1998
Now what?
Implementation Checklist
Reading 11
Discussion
How much do we agree with?
(Is it all a load of rubbish - new terminology for old ideas?)
How to proceed?
R. Barnes, 1998