The real reason that projects fail and how to fix it - An introduction to Critical Chain Project Management

Gary Palmer
Critical Point Consulting 1

www.criticalpoint.co.uk
CriticalPointConsulting
Late
What do we mean by ‘Project Failure’?
2
Over Budget
Below Specification
Below Quality
Any one of:

Late
3
+ Over Budget
+ Below Specification
+ Below Quality
Why do we need to change? - 1
Because huge numbers of projects are:

4
Productivity & Throughput:
Often Low
Excessive Wastage
Slow Progress
Costly

5
Business Impact:
Product Expensive
Late to Market
Customer Dissatisfaction
Reputation
Project Failure & Slow Costly Projects Cripples Business

Late
6
Over Budget
Below Specification
Below Quality
What is the main driver for these failures?
Late projects fuel other failures:

1. The traditional methods in use,
VIRTUALLY GUARANTEE these results.
7
2. We have not had a viable alternative.
Until now…
What are the reasons for this?

CCPM Statistics:
Project Delivery: 90%+ on time
Project Completion: 20% - 50% Faster
Productivity: 20% - 60% Increase
Critical Chain Project Management
8
Without increasing resources

9
By resolving problems in our working methods that:
1. Slow everything down
2. Cause our contingency to be ineffective
3. Cause inefficiencies and wastage
How Does CCPM Deliver These Improvements?

‘A transportable set of interlinked techniques and
tools that work individually and collaboratively to
significantly improve the processes and operation of
scheduling and execution in any* project, programme
and portfolio environment’
What is CCPM?
10

What is CCPM?
11
Transportable: Not industry / sector specific
Applicable in any* project environment
Works with existing project structures

What is CCPM?
12
Techniques: Working practices, Behaviours
Tools: Processes, Software

What is CCPM?
13
Individually: Resolve a specific problem
Collaboratively: In unison to support the whole

What is CCPM?
14
Improvements: Efficient processes
Faster operation
Better work environment

What is CCPM?
15
Scheduling: Optimum, realistic schedule
Effective contingency protection
Execution: Efficient working practices
Excellent progress visibility, focus, control

scheduling and execution in any * project,
programme and portfolio environment’
What is CCPM?
16
Projects: Single projects
Programme: Multi-project Any Sector
Portfolio: Enterprise-wide

Traditional Project Management
The Five Elements of Failure
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule
17
So, what are the problems in Traditional Proj. Mgmt.?

Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule
18

Planned Completion
Characterised by Deadline Dates and Milestones
Attempt to impose a Rigid construct on a Variable situation
Actual dates will always change
… and will need constant and continued updating
09/09 1/10
13/09 23/09 04/10
10/091/09 15/09 23/09 1/10 15/10
10/09 15/09 21/09 07/10
23/0922/09
30/09
13/10
22/09 03/10 09/10
09/09 14/09 22/09 13/10
14/09 20/09 06/10 13/10
Task Deadline Scheduling – Planning to Fail
19
19/10

Shouldn’t early and late finishes balance out?
Usually not.
20

Potential
Early Finish
Parkinson’s Law – ‘Work expands to fill the time available’
Task
Deadline
Date
Missed
Time-Saving
21

3 d7 days
Late Finish
Adds Time
Early Finish
Gain Lost
5 days
5 days 5 days
Planned
2 days added
to schedule
No benefit
to schedule
Parallel Converging Tasks tied to schedule dates
Losses Accumulate - Gains Don’t
…And the schedule moves out
22
5 days 5 days 5 days
✓
✓
✓
3 d✓

Calculation: (Task Probability%^no. of tasks)
With a 90% task probability:
10 tasks = 35% probability
20 tasks = 12%
50 tasks = 0.05%
100 tasks = 0.000026%
Q? - How many tasks in your current project?
Q- What is the probability of all a project’s tasks finishing on time?
23

Due Dates attempt a rigid structure on a variable situation
A ‘Train Timetable’ - where the trains never run on time
Parkinson’s Law often prevents early finishes
Losses increase time and costs, not offset by gains
Schedule is guaranteed to require frequent changes
Project end-date slip is almost inevitable
Summary
24

Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
25
CCPM
Schedule
The Five Elements of Success

Planned Completion
09/09 1/10
13/09 23/09 06/10
10/091/09 15/09 23/09 1/10 15/10
10/09 15/09 21/09 07/10
23/0922/09
30/09
13/10
22/09 03/10 09/10
09/09 14/09 22/09 13/10
14/09 20/09 06/10 13/10
26
Why schedule and publish fixed dates and deadlines….
…if we know they will change?

09/09 1/10
13/09 23/09 04/10
10/091/09 15/09 23/09 1/10 15/10
10/09 15/09 21/09 07/10
23/0922/09
30/09
13/10
22/09 03/10 09/10
09/09 14/09 22/09 13/10
14/09 20/09 06/10 13/10
27
Estimated Task Dates used for initial planning
CCPM Schedule

Very few Internal Due Dates / Deadlines
Schedule is used primarily as a Dependency Chart
Each task completes asap and next task is started
No schedule updating necessary
CCPM Schedule
28
09/09
13/09
1/09
10/09
30/12

Potential
Early Finish
Task
Deadline
Date
CCPM Schedule
29
So now, without deadlines to fuel Parkinson behaviours,

Potential
Early Finish
Task
Deadline
Date
CCPM Schedule
30
Our potential Early Finish…

Potential
Early Finish
Task
CCPM Schedule
31
Our potential Early Finish…

Actual
Early Finish
Task
CCPM Schedule
32
…can become a reality.

across the whole project
CCPM Schedule
33

Shorter Task Execution = Reduced Time & Costs
Faster and Cheaper Projects
CCPM Schedule
34

CCPM values speed over working to fixed dates
Summary
Very few internal due dates
Work carried out on an ‘as soon as possible’ basis
A ‘Relay Race’ (not a ‘Train Schedule’)
Early finishes reduce timescales & cost
Flexible structure for a variable environment
Few due dates means few / no schedule updates
CCPM Schedule
35

Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
36
CCPM
Schedule

37
Familiarity with technology
Known Unknowns
Unknown Unknowns
Fear of Failure
Confidence in Spec.
Estimate chopping
Confidence in own ability
Complexity of the taskFamiliarity with task
Specification Stability
Multi-tasking
Task-Level Contingency
Easy LifeInterruptions
How Much
Contingency?

38
Familiarity with technology
Known Unknowns
Unknown Unknowns
Fear of Failure
Confidence in Spec.
Estimate chopping
Confidence in own ability
Complexity of the taskFamiliarity with task
Specification Stability
Multi-tasking
Easy LifeInterruptions
A Guess

Effect 1- An Extended Schedule
Self-protection (in blue) encourages fat estimates
A project may contain > 50% embedded contingency
39

ContingencyWork
Deadline
Date
Effect 2 – Student Syndrome
Scheduled
Start
40
Actual
Start
Initially plenty of contingency
No incentive to start immediately
Start deferred

Work
Deadline
Date
Scheduled
Start
41
Actual
Start
Contingency decreased

Deadline
Date
Scheduled
Start
42
Other
work
Work
Big
Problem
Maybe another task is required / preferred
Now no contingency left and work is rushed
Then a big problem surfaces…

Deadline
Date
Scheduled
Start
43
Other
work
Work
Big
Problem
And now we have a task over-run…

Delayed Completion
Planned Completion
If on a Critical Path task = project over-run
Effect 3 – Unprotected Project End-Date
44

Effect 4- Unmanaged Time
45
Traditional contingency (shown in Blue)

Where is the contingency?
How do you measure and manage it?
Maybe 50% of project time is not under control
Effect 4 – Unmanaged Time
46
Project Manager’s View

Inflated ‘Localised’ Estimates which generate
Student Syndrome which results in
Parkinson’s Behaviours and
Long, Over-padded Schedules which encourages
Self-Protection leads to
Unprotected From Delays and which have
Task-level Contingency
Hidden, Unmanaged Contingency
Slow and Costly Projects which are still
Task-Level Contingency - Problem Cascade
47

Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
48
CCPM
Schedule

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
49
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency

50
High Levels of Embedded Contingency
CCPM Project-Level Contingency
Traditional Task-Level Contingency (Review)

Remove task-level contingency
51

52
Task Estimates have no in-built contingency
Estimates are based on ‘Aggressive-but-possible’ task times

Shorter Task Durations & much reduced timeline
No space for Parkinson or Student Syndrome
But where is our contingency now?
53

Buffer protects the Project – not individual tasks
Provides the project Commit Date
Aggregate Contingency
Project
Commit
Date
Project Buffer
54

Critical Task over-runs are absorbed by the Buffer
The Project ’Schedule’ remains unchanged
The Project Commit Date is not affected
Project Protection
Project
Commit
Date
Project Buffer
55

Project Protection
Project
Commit
Date
Project Buffer
Buffer Status shows the impact on contingency
Now able to measure and manage our contingency
Buffer
Status
56

If a Critical Task finishes early…
The time saved is ‘added back’ into our contingency
Buffer Status always shows the latest position
Project Protection
Project
Commit
Date
Project Buffer
57
Buffer
Status

Project Contingency which results in
Student Syndrome which results in
Parkinson’s Behaviours and
Streamlined Schedules with
Aggregated Uncertainties are built into a
Visible, Manageable Contingency which prevents
Protected From Delays
Fast and Efficient Projects which are
58
Project-Level Contingency Cascade

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
59
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency

Task H
Task F
Task I
Task B Task C Task D
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E
Critical Path ignores resources
Critical Path based ONLY on task dependency & duration
Valid only in an environment without resource constraints
But what happens if we have resource contentions?
Critical Path – A dangerous path to follow?
60

Critical Path Problems
Resource Contentions
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E
61
Tasks F & C need the same resources, as do tasks G & I

Post–CP Resource Levelling
Task E
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task B Task D
Task G
Task A Task J
Levelling resolves the issue… but increases timescales
And the vision of the Critical Path dominates
…and so tactical manoeuvres soon start...
Task C
62

1- Multi-Tasking
Task H
Task B Task DTask A Task J
Task E
Quality may be reduced
Predictability becomes less certain
Work becomes fragmented and control less easy
But because Multi-tasking takes longer…
63

2 - Overtime
Task H
Task E
…Extra hours need to be worked
Scheduling & Control becomes difficult
64

Slippage
Task H
Task E
Multi-tasking is high risk
High potential for slippage
Diminishing returns due to staff morale / burnout
65

Scope Cut
Task H
Task E
Last resort to hit target date is a Scope Cut
May cause work in other areas
Further degrades quality
‘Project Meltdown’
ScopeCutScopeCut
ScopeCut
66

Incorrect Dependency Path often with
Misleading Priorities which encourages a spiral of
Ignoring Resources Contentions leads to an
Unstable Schedule
Fire-fighting tactics which leads to an
Unrealistic Completion Dates and
Out of Control Project with an
Critical Path Cascade
67

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
68
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Path

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
69
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain

Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E
CCPM Critical Chain
1. Build Dependency Network As Normal
Include Resource Requirements
- right at the start
70

CCPM Critical Chain
2. CCPM Software - Resource Levelling
Task E
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
71
Resource-levelling the schedule…
Prevents over-allocation of resources

CCPM Critical Chain
3. CCPM Software - Identify the Critical Chain
Task E
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
CCPM treats Resource Constraints as dependencies…
Priority sequence also goes to resource dependent tasks
A realistic critical sequence – The Critical Chain
72

Critical Chain / Critical Path Comparison
Task E
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E
Critical Chain
Critical Path
73
Irrespective of what you draw in the CP schedule, the real
situation will be driven by the realities of resource constraints

Critical Chain / Critical Path Comparison
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E
Critical Chain
Critical Path
74
If there are no resource clashes, the Critical Chain will be
the same as the Critical Path
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E

Correct Dependency Path with
Realistic Priorities which provides a
Including Resources Contentions leads to a
Stable Schedule
Realistic Project Duration and
Project Under Control with a
CCPM Critical Chain
Critical Chain Cascade
75

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
76
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain

3d
Task 1: 9 days Task 2: 9 days Task 3: 9 days
Time
3d 3d3d 3d 3d 3d 3d 3d
Without Multi-tasking:
With Multi-tasking:
27 Days
31 Days
• Speed – Everything is delayed
• Quality – Likely to be less
• Productivity - Reduced
Day 24
Day 9
• Nothing gets completed until day 24.
Task 1: + 15 days late(+165%)
Task 2: + 8 days late (+47%)
Task 3: + 2 days late (+22%)
Traditional Project Management Multi-tasking:
The Illusion of being productive
77

Multi-tasking; The SINGLE best way…
…to screw up TWO JOBS.
It slows everything down
It reduces quality
It wastes time and costs more
It is bad for morale
It complicates scheduling & control
It removes planning predictability
It causes delivery delays
Summary
Traditional Project Management Multi-tasking:
The Illusion of being productive
78

Poor Measures
& Control
79
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking

One task only worked on at a time
No interruptions
Dedicated work until task complete
CCPM - Task Management
Single Tasking
80

Task 1: 9 days Task 2: 9 days Task 3: 9 days
Time
Without Multi-tasking:
27 Days
CCPM Single Tasking
The reality of being productive
Return to effective and efficient working

‘Good’ Multi-Tasking
Non-Project / background, no dependencies or deadlines.
Training/education. QA tasks. Flexi-time.
‘Bad’ Multi-Tasking
‘Double-booked’ on overlapping tasks.
Covering Additional / Support roles.
‘Ugly’ Multi-Tasking
Personnel allocated simultaneous project tasks.
Endemic, cultural.
CCPM Single Tasking
Can Multi-tasking be removed?
82

It improves quality
It reduces time & money spent
It simplifies scheduling & control
It enables planning predictability
It is good for morale
It speeds everything up
Summary
CCPM Single Tasking
83

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
84
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking

Use of ‘Percentage Complete’:
Report to expectation – no bad news to give
Can’t be challenged – only task owner knows
Often simply aligned with time used
Optimism that time can be pulled back
Infrequent reporting gives psychological cushion
Reality is often ignored - An easy place to hide
Progress Measurement
85

Measurements -
Percentage Complete, Time / money used / left
Position against base line, Milestones achieved…
What do they tell us?
How much time/money used - Retrospective
What do they tell us about the future?
Very little…
86
What is the Only Question PM’s get asked?

‘Are you on target?’
What do we really need to know?
How exposed are we?
Have we got enough safety in hand?
Is there a trend?
Is it upward or downward?
Should we be taking any action?
Where should we be taking action?
87

Often not a true / realistic picture
Real Status / safety contingency is hidden
False sense of schedule security
Leads to persisting ‘90% complete’ / late-emerging issues
Can cause major / incorrect re-scheduling
Doesn’t answer the Big Question
Summary
88

Multi-tasking
89
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking
Good Measures
Visible Control

CCPM Progress Reporting:
Often
When any significant change occurs
90
CCPM Progress Measurement
Is task complete?
If not, how much task-time left remaining?
Frequency:
Questions:

‘Critical Chain’ Completed
✓
✓✓
Critical Chain completed reported into CCPM software
91
A
B C D
E F

Contingency Buffer Usage
92
+3
+3
A
B C D
E F
✓

Contingency Buffer Usage
Task C has no effect on buffer
93
Buffer
Used
+3
+3
+3 +3
Buffer
Remaining
A
B C D
E F
✓

Seeing into the Future
Immediate report from task D that an extra 5 days will be required
This report immediately shows in Buffer Usage
Provides ‘view ahead’ notification of future position
94
Buffer
Used
+3
+3 +5
+3 +3
Buffer
Remaining
DCB
A E F
+5
Early Report

Amount of critical work completed: Critical Chain
Put these two together…
95
Now we have two key measurements:
How much contingency remaining: Project Buffer

Singular
Objective
Predictive
Easily interpreted
Auto constructed
Up-to-date
Immediate
The Fever Chart
96

Frequent Reporting:
Progress is always up-to-date
Project position is always up-to-date
Summary - 1
97

‘Remaining Duration’ Reporting:
More accurate / realistic picture
Focusses the task worker
Real Status / safety contingency is visible
Persisting ‘90% complete’ syndrome banished
Prevents late-emerging issues
Summary - 2
98

Fever Chart:
Combined view of progress and contingency
Trends provide early warning
Objective, singular, visual, always available
Prevents unnecessary schedule changes
Answers the Big Question!
Summary - 3
99

Multi-tasking
100
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking
Good Measures
Visible Control
So, have we fixed all of the problems?
Yes – but not just these; CCPM fixes a bigger problem and the
reason that past improvements have not succeeded

Vicious
Circles
101

The Five Problems
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule
102What problem is also caused by these five issues?

Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
103Each individual issue causes schedule changes
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule
Schedule Instability

Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
104
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule
And Schedule changes cause other problems and…
Problem Self-Perpetuation

Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
105Each individual problem area perpetuates others
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule

Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
106Locked-in, self-perpetuating, systemic failure
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule

CCPM Solutions
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
107
Project-Level
Contingency
CCPM
Schedule
Critical Chain
Single-tasking
Rem. Duration
Visible Control
Fixing the internal problems removes vicious circles:

CCPM Schedule Stability
108And the causes of schedule changes and their impact
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Project-Level
Contingency
CCPM
Schedule
Critical Chain
Rem. Duration
Visible Control
Single-tasking

Project-Level
Contingency
Rem. Duration
Visible Control
Single-tasking
Critical Chain
CCPM
Schedule
CCPM Schedule Stability
109
CCPM removes the causes of problem perpetuation
schedule changes and systemic failure

Seven Problems of Traditional PM…
…and the Seven Solutions of CCPM
Traditional Problems:
Deadline Scheduling
Critical Path
Multi-tasking
Poor Measures & Control
Schedule Volatility
Problem Perpetuation
110
CCPM Solutions:
Flexible Scheduling
Project-Level Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking
Good Measures & Control
Schedule Stability
Solution Constancy
Poor Work Environment
= ‘Progressive Excellence’
Good Work Environment
= ‘Terminal Mediocrity’

Programme
& Portfolio
Myth
Achieving Terminal
Mediocrity on a
Large Scale
111

The Programme & Portfolio Myth
1. That the more projects you start, the more you will get done
112
CCPM in Programme and Portfolio

3mths
Project 1: 9mths Project 2: 9mths Project3: 9mths
3mths 3mths3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths
Project Fragmentation:
27 mths
30 mths
mth 23
mth 9
If projects have to time-slice,
Fragmentation will delay all projects
Driven by edict for all projects to be shown as started
113
Overloaded Programme
1. Project Time-Slicing

3mths
Project 1: 9 mths Project 2: 9mths Project3: 9mths
3mths 3mths3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths
27 mths
30 mths
9 mths
21 mths
Longer elapsed time gives more exposure time for changes
Changes generate more work and extend projects further
Meanwhile unfinished work gets ‘rusty’
114
1. Project Time-Slicing

Frequently great pressure to start more projects -
Often ignoring the realities of resource capacity
115
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
2. Simultaneous Projects

Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
116
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Reality at Working Level
Insufficient resource causes Cross-Project Reallocations
‘Who shouts loudest’ gets the resources
All projects suffer and get delayed
Exterior View
2. Simultaneous Projects

117
Who gets the resources?

Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
118
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Gaps left in projects fuel Multi-tasking
Exterior View

Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
119
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Gaps + multi-tasking delay all projects
Constant changes make schedules volatile / unworkable
Exterior View

Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
120
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Reality at Working LevelExterior View
. . . .?
. . . .?
. .?
. .?
. .?
Major impact is that completion becomes unpredictable

An Overloaded system causes:
Fighting over Insufficient Resources
Volatile / Unworkable Schedules
Fuels Multi-tasking
Delays
Loss of Completion Predictability
Summary
121

The Programme & Portfolio Myth
So what can we do to improve this?
1. That the more projects you start, the more you will get done
122
… You won’t

Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
123
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
. . . .?
. . . .?
. .?
. .?
. . .?
How did we got here?

Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
124
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
. . . .?
. . . .?
. .?
. .?
. . .?
Belief that ‘More Work In = More Work Out’
Lack of Real Priorities (‘It’s all Top Priority!’)
Lack of regime to prevent overloading

Forcing work in over capacity slows throughput
Working within capacity speeds up throughput
Solution:
Convince management of the above realities
Stop feeding in more than system can manage
CCPM in Multi-Project Environment:
Maximising Throughput
125
Problem 1: ‘More Work In = More Work Out’

Not having clear prioritisation slows throughput
Having priorities speeds up throughput
Solution:
Priorities are mandatory
‘It’s all Top Priority!’ is banned
All decisions start with Priorities
Priorities need to be business-based
126
Problem 2: Lack of Priorities

No loading rules = No control = Overloading
Solution:
Start new projects only when capacity allows
‘Stagger’ new projects starts to avoid major issues
127
Problem 3: Lack of regime to prevent overloading

• Prioritise !
• ‘Stagger’ project starts to avoid major contention
• Start new projects only when capacity allows
128
Solution Summary:

129
Project E
Project D
Project C
Project A
Project B
Project F
Prioritise!
Priority 1
Priority 6
Priority 5
Priority 4
Priority 3
Priority 2

130
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
CCPM in the Multi-Project Environment:
Priority 1
Priority 6
Priority 5
Priority 4
Priority 3
Priority 2

Project 6
Project 4
Project 5
131
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
? =

132
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
? =

133
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
?

134
?
KR
KR
KR
KR
KR
KR

KR
KR
KR
KR

136
KR
KR
KR
KR
KR
KR

137
What’s the new picture look like?
KR
KR
KR
KR

It’s what you finish…
…not what you start.
138

139
Proj A
Proj B
Proj C
Proj E
Proj F
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PercentageofBufferUsed
Percentage of Critical Chain Completed
Multi-project Fever Chart
Programme Fever Chart focusses on projects that need attention
CCPM Programme Management
The Programme Fever Chart

The Evidence
for CCPM
140

High Tech
3M
Advasense Technologies
Agilent Technologie
AMCC
AMD
Avaya
Avitronics
Barco
Bell Canada
BT Radianz
Computer Sciences Corp
Cray, Inc.
ECI Telecom Ltd.
Eclozion Informatique
Ericsson
Estonian Telephone
Fairchild Semiconductor
Graftech
Hewlett Packard
Hitachi Computer Products
Honeywell
IBM
Ismeca Europe Semiconductor
ITT Canon
L-3 Communication Systems
LSI Logic
Lucent Technologies
Marvell
High Tech /
Medtronic, Inc.
Microsoft
Motorola
Numonyx
Philips Semiconductors
Pioneer
Qualcomm
RSA Security
SanDisk
Sapient
Seagate Technology LLC
Sony Ericsson
Spirent Communications
Sprint
Sun Microsystems
Symbian
Tadiran Spectralink
Tektronix
TT Technologies
Tundra Semiconductor
Workscape
Xerox Corporation
Business Education
Ashridge Management College
Project Management Institute
London Business School
+ Over 160 Universities
Life Sciences
Abbott Labs
Adirondack Surgery
AHIS-St. Vincent Health
AMGEN
Andover Healthcare Inc.
Arterain Medical
Baxter
Boston Scientific
Central Dupage Health
Bovis Pharmaceuticals
Converge Medical Inc.
Cytori Therapeutics, Inc.
Edwards Lifescience
Ethicon
Gambro Healthcare
GlaxoSmithKline
Johnson & Johnson
Medtronic
Merck Medco Managed Care
Pfizer
Pharmacia
Roche Diagnostics
Spectranetics
Tenet Health Care
Tyco Healthcare
United Behavioral Health
Vascore Medical
Ventana
Companies Using CCPM - 1
141

Aerospace and Defense
Aerojet Corporation
Air Force Institute of Tech.
BAE Systems
The Boeing Company
General Dynamics
Halliburton
ITT Space Systems
Lockheed
NASA
Northrop Grumman
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Raytheon
SAAB Avionics
US Air Force
Consumer Products
Coca-Cola
Colgate Palmolive
Del Monte Foods
Fonterra
Gillette
Heineken
IKEA
Kraft Foods
McKee Foods
Nike
Philip Morris
Industrial
ABB
Accoat
Advanced Energy Technology
Alcan
Alfa Lava
American Rubber Products
Applied Plasmonics
AREVA
Atomic Energy of Canada .
Balfour Beatty
Bimba Manufacturing
Bosal
Bosch Rexroth Ltda.
Brice Manufacturing
BVR Technologies Company
C.F. Roark Welding.
Callaway Golf
Celite Corporation s
Conoco
Corning Cable Systems
Cueros Industrializados
DaimlerChrysler UK
Danfoss
Delta Faucet Company
Detroit Diesel Reman-West
DuPont
Eastman Kodak Company
Industrial/
ExxonMobil Chemical
Fisher Controls
Fluid Brasil Sistemas
Fluke Corporation
Fuel Cell Energy
GE Industrial Systems
Hach
Honda
ITT Corporation
Kawasaki Heavy Industries,
M&M Precision Systems
Marshall Industries
Merichem Chemicals
Milwaukee Forge
Rail care
Raychem
Rolls Royce
Siemens
Sylvania
Unilever
Tata
UPC Technology
Volvo
Source:TOC International, Gatlinburg, TN.
Companies Using CCPM - 2
142

Results:
After having used it in 2,523 public works projects in 2007
and over 4,000 projects in 2008, the Japanese government
now requires that CCPM be used on all public works
projects (approximately 20,000 projects per year).”
Japanese Government
143
Source: ProChain Inc. http://www.prochain.com/clients/results.html
Copyright © 2013 by ProChain Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
ProChain is an industry-leading US-based CCPM software developer and implementer.
Here are some client quotes from various case studies using ProChain products:
CCPM Software - ProChain Inc.
• ‘Reduced first project more than 10 months (approx. 50%)’
• ‘Between 25 - 50 % reduction on first 10 projects’
• ‘On-time completion of projects increased from 22% to well above 90%’
• ‘On-time completion of projects now at 100%’
• ‘Average project length reduced by more than 50%’
• ‘On-time delivery of projects went from 40% to nearly 100%’
• ‘More than doubled project throughput’
• ‘Return on investment conservatively 500:1’

Professional Recognition
APM Body of Knowledge.
"An alternative to creating networks based on activity dependencies is to use a
technique called critical chain. This method considers the availability of resources
and the interdependencies between resources.“ - APM Body of Knowledge 6th edition (2012) p 155
Association for Project Management
PMI Body of Knowledge
“Critical chain is a schedule network analysis technique that modifies the project
schedule to account for limited resources. Initially, the project schedule network
diagram is built using duration estimates with required dependencies and defined
constraints as inputs. The critical path is then calculated. After the critical path is
identified, resource availability is entered and the resource-limited schedule result is
determined. The resulting schedule often has an altered critical path.”
PMI BoK 4th edition. Ch 6 Time Management p.155
Project Management Institute
144

Professional Recognition
Conference Presentation
Critical Chain Project Management using Microsoft Project and Prochain:
Implementing Project Portfolio Management.
The Theory of Constraints International Certification Organization (TOCICO) is a global
not-for-profit certification organization for TOC practitioners, consultants and
academics to develop and administer certification standards, and facilitate the
exchange of latest developments. TOCICO has run an international conference for the
past 11 years.
145

146
The Theory of Constraints & CCPM - 30yrs in the making:
The work and books of Eli Goldratt
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Manufacturing, Accounting, Production
The Goal, The Race, The Haystack Syndrome
The Thinking Process
The Jonah Program, The Choice
Distribution, Marketing, Management
It’s Not Luck
Project Management
Critical Chain
TOC & Technology
Necessary But Not Sufficient
TOC & Business Strategy
Viable Vision
Retail
Isn’t It Obvious?

Development:
Result of many years of continuous development
Based on Theory of Constraints (TOC) 1980’s – 1990’s
Needed software to be truly viable
Software too slow to develop
Software now mature & robust (see ProChain.com)
Key Publications by Eliyahu Goldratt:
1984 'The Goal' – TOC in manufacturing
1997 ‘Critical Chain’ - Applying TOC to project management
CCPM Potted History
147

‘Critical Chain Project Management presents us with an opportunity to plan
projects well for maybe the very first time. We should make sure that we
break with our old traditions of how we have done things in the past, and re-
plan our projects from scratch.
But planning is only half the story. The real power of CCPM comes from the
control afforded during the execution or deployment of the job. Buffer status
and buffer management allows us unprecedented feedback on the progress
of the project and where to focus attention and where not.
And maybe this is the most important factor in the whole approach.
We have a totally new and systemic way to manage projects. We should
make the very most of this opportunity.’
Dr. Kelvin Youngman
Last Word
148

Over 15 years experience of implementing CCPM
in
Multiple companies / Multiple industries
info@criticalpoint.co.uk
UK: 01892 506881 | Intl: +44 1892 506881
Critical Point Consulting
149

The real reason that projects fail and how to fix it - An introduction to Critical Chain Project Management

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a The real reason that projects fail and how to fix it - An introduction to Critical Chain Project Management

Similar a The real reason that projects fail and how to fix it - An introduction to Critical Chain Project Management (20)

Más de Association for Project Management

Más de Association for Project Management (20)

Último

Último (20)

The real reason that projects fail and how to fix it - An introduction to Critical Chain Project Management