TOCICO Chicago Conference June 2012
CCPM Research using the Standing on the Shoulders of Giant’s Process.
Breakout Report summarized by James Holt from many
contributions of participants.
goal of these two breakout sessions was to consider expanding the reach of the
Giant of CCPM to other areas (and to also highlight areas where their might be
problems with someone has already solved but are not generally known-nuggets of
knowledge that need to be published).
The CCPM Breakout group was about 60 CCPM experts. There was a short review of CCPM basic
theory by Ajai Kapoor. The Giant
of CCPM was discussed with its dramatic successes in a wide variety of
general boundary of traditional CCPM was outlined:
Task Touch time is comparable to task duration.
Time is critical
Plans can be created
Durations can be estimated
Cutting WIP reduces Multi-Tasking
Uncertainties can be absorbed in the Buffer
Accountability is maintained through Buffer
Have a PERT Plan to start
Create Aggressive Plan (50% Durations)
Identify the Critical Chain.
Remove Resource Conflicts.
Insert Buffers (Project Completion Buffers,
Adjust schedule as necessary.
Sequence Multiple Projects (with a Drum Buffer
of Virtual Buffer).
Manage Projects using Buffer Management.
example of areas outside projects outside the traditional CCPM boundary was
Maintenance where thousands of tasks are assembled in work packages (short
duration tasks within a larger work package-the short work must be done within
the work packages window of time).
This project environment produces much traveling work (delayed of
uncompleted work into the next work package) and acts much like production.
participants broke into four groups and identified this list of additional
areas they felt were outside the traditional CCPM boundaries:
with many uncertain arrival rates (must start when arrive).
Down of operations.
duration task (1<<day) projects.
Project and Non-Project work.
with High Dependence on Customer, Vendor and Supplier contributions.
Duration Procurement (short tasks spread over a long period).
and Marketing Projects.
where we can’t control the task duration (Surgery).
Percentage of Fixed Lead Time in Projects.
Review, the groups decided to attach several areas in small groups to see if
their could be progress. Much
discussion ensued. Many conflict
clouds, logic twigs and assumptions were pondered and debated. The following is a summary of some of
Not Covered by the Giant of CCPM: Area where many external factors are present
in the CCPM plan (Customer, Vendor, Supplier actions are on the critical chain
on in feeding chains).
Assumption: Safety embedded in individual tasks can
be removed and aggregated into the Project Buffer.
Assumption: The impact of External Elements are
Assumption: Feeder Buffer are only for scheduling.
Assumption: Suppliers will respond to monetary
Assumption: The best way to manage external
elements is "Hands-Off” with Feeder Buffers.
Apply the Supply Chain Partnership model (Replenishment solution) to Project
Management. Final Sell price is
shared a Fixed Cost (floor cost of each task) plus a percentage above the floor
for each task. TDD and IDD help
keep external elements cooperative.
Not Covered by the Giant of CCPM: New Project Development.
We have a Flow Line.
in Assumption: New Product
development is a new world full of never ending iterative processes.
More planning (can reduce iterations)
Establish the criteria to identify excellent value projects during Full Kitting.
Think out the New Ideas Funnel with quick early evaluation, and second
evaluations (or more later) to leave just the best for final project work (the
Not Covered by the Giant of CCPM: R&D
Assumption: We have a known goal.
There is an end date.
Assumption: There is a linear project flow plan.
Create firm expectations between customer and workers.
‘Full Kit’ is the first phase of the project.
Improved effectiveness (through collaboration).
Not Covered by the Giant of CCPM: Short Duration Tasks (<1 day)
Assumption: Remaining Durations estimates are
required to status the project.
Assumption: Preceding tasks must be complete before
Assumption: The minimum time per task is 1 day.
Assumption: We need to know the buffer status.
Injection: Report only Completed Work.
Injection: We have Automated Reporting.
Injection: We bundle completed tasks for reporting
Injection: Change focus from Resources to WIP.
Not Covered by the Giant of CCPM: Start-Ups
We can plan a Start-up.
We can estimate Task Durations.
We must have a Project Buffer.
The Project Buffer can absorb the variation
The Full Kit is part of the Bigger Plan.
addition to these possible areas of expansion of CCPM, there were many UDEs
identified that are associated with the CCPM Process or Implementation.
Some of these UDEs may have been solved but that golden nugget solution is not
widely known. These UDEs could be the topic of a nice, short paper posted the
TOCICO Project Management Forum.
An analysis based on many of these UDEs may find a core problem with the
implementation or blockages to implementations that can be the subject of a
great TOCICO Webinar or a TOCICO conference presentation. A fully analyzed study could even be a consideration for a Goldratt
UDE List (and a few questions):
are too many disagreements on precedence.
are more than 1000+ tasks.
minute of the Buffer is always used up (features are added or deleted to use up
all the buffer).
is confusion about combining many small projects into a single large project or
to manage each project individually.
will not accept cutting their estimates in half.
an aggressive schedule always be 50%?
adjustment do we make for experienced CCPM groups?
there a better way of converting a partially complete active project to a CCPM
do we deal with a project plan when the required delivery date is much less
than the end of the Project Buffer?
we adjust task durations based upon the person who is assigned the task?
do we deal with Novices and Journeyman on the same project?
much change can the Project Completion Buffer absorb before we reschedule the
happens when Feeding Chains are longer than the Critical Chain?
often have multiple critical chains in the same project.
can’t agree on the method to level resources.
much resource conflict can we allow within a single project?
can we tell resource loading before we release new work?
we overlap tasks that share common resources?
we buffer in-progress work?
don’t know whether to include Feeder Buffers or not.
do we control costs on Projects?
big should the Cost Buffer be?
can’t meet our Earned Value numbers using CCPM.
can’t decide when to release new work to the system.
doesn’t accept CCPM.
is not a complete project management solution.
requires too much detail.
provides too little detail.
by James Holt