Michael BrownProject Manager| JPMorganChaseDeerfield, Il, United States
I'm interested in hearing success stories of organizations which have begun to implement Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM). How successful has it been? Have you implemented on a project-by-project basis, or enveloped the entire enterprise all at once? Saving Changes...
Scitor Corporation has a high end Project Management suite (PS Suite) which includes extensive support for Critical Chain. As a matter of disclosure, I should note that I am an employee of Scitor Corporation.
Unlike some other products which are plugins for existing products, PS Suite is a fully integrated, enterprise-capable Project Management package that supports Critical Chain methodology.
A discussion of Critical Chain project management and how it relates to our product can be found online at:
(Note: My comments are my own and are in no way endorsed or supported by my employer, Scitor Corporation. I take sole responsibility for my comments.) Saving Changes...
At the recent TOC World conference were presentations by several organizations that have implemented CC in a multiple project environment...
Lucent -- Project intervals reduced by 50%, 100% of projects on or ahead of commitment, tripled project capactiy/throughput, 30% revenue improvement
BAE Systems -- 18 months of ontime performance, avoided planned doubling of staff, clear understanding of bottlenecks, reduced project carrying cost by average $400K
Seagate -- Moving entire product development effort to multi-project management, huge cultural improvements due to clear guidance on priorities
Most of these were implemented as multiple-project systems, but equal success has been had in introducing on a project-by-project basis, or in some cases, where resources are clearly dedicated to individual projects, as a set of multiple single projects. The quickest way to the biggest organizational gains, however comes from going the "whole system" route, where everyone is singing from the same page.
The piecemeal methods of implementation, while effective for the individual projects and workable as an entree when there is considerable resistance to change, require a bit more time and attention as they fend off the mindsets of others in the organization who are still focusing on task due dates and on ripping off resources from other projects.
I've attached to this file a set of briefs on organizations who have implemented both single and multiple versions of CC. It's current as of late 1999. The companies I mentioned above are more recent examples of others who have gone public.
At the recent TOC World conference were presentations by several organizations that have implemented CC in a multiple project environment...
Lucent -- Project intervals reduced by 50%, 100% of projects on or ahead of commitment, tripled project capactiy/throughput, 30% revenue improvement
BAE Systems -- 18 months of ontime performance, avoided planned doubling of staff, clear understanding of bottlenecks, reduced project carrying cost by average $400K
Seagate -- Moving entire product development effort to multi-project management, huge cultural improvements due to clear guidance on priorities
Most of these were implemented as multiple-project systems, but equal success has been had in introducing on a project-by-project basis, or in some cases, where resources are clearly dedicated to individual projects, as a set of multiple single projects. The quickest way to the biggest organizational gains, however comes from going the "whole system" route, where everyone is singing from the same page.
The piecemeal methods of implementation, while effective for the individual projects and workable as an entree when there is considerable resistance to change, require a bit more time and attention as they fend off the mindsets of others in the organization who are still focusing on task due dates and on ripping off resources from other projects.
I've attached to this file a set of briefs on organizations who have implemented both single and multiple versions of CC. It's current as of late 1999. The companies I mentioned above are more recent examples of others who have gone public.
We began to implement CCPM on a single and simple project (a new order for a locomotive modernisation w/out new design). This is at the begining of implementation. But I wonder if CCPM could be used with Earned value management the same way as before of if we need to adjust our EVM process? Is anybody has experience with that ? Saving Changes...
Regarding CCPM and EVMS, a lot of BOGUS conversation has gone on about how they are incompatible. While I have not had any direct contact with EVMS-oriented clients in my CC work, earlier this year, a working group of knowledgeable people in both worlds got together and put together a draft presentation on the subject. I've got a Powerpoint file documenting their discussion that I could share, if this Gantthead upload process didn't always seem to hang on me. Let me know if you are interested in it. Saving Changes...
Hello Franck, I am very interested in that presentation. You know i have to face quite a challenge in trying to teach project management to Romanian staff who are discovering that. I manage to teach them EVM and it works well. But i think that CCPM could also improve the process. Thank you in advance. Saving Changes...
There's a current Gantthead article that references Critical Chain. I thought that it would be worth posting my comment on it here as well.
While Goldratt emphasizes the devastating impact of multi-tasking as a major path for introducing the Critical Chain-based Multi-Project solution, it is not the only undesirable behavior that is addressed in its implementation. CCPM also talks to the failure of common estimating practices, the failure common tracking practices, and common ways of dealing with uncertainty.
(Note I refer to the common, not to the traditional or the "best" practices. More about those later.)
Ms. Cabanis-Brewin suggests that the real issue is in the too-common practice of asking for estimates and then subjecting them to a management cut -- "if our estimation process is realistic, and if . . . our realistic estimates are accepted by the powers that be."
Estimates will always contain more safety than necessary UNLESS those who estimate are comfortable that they will not be punished for being unlucky in their execution (whether due to multi-tasking or to Murphy). Managers will always want to cut project durations if the embedded safety results in project durations that do not meet business needs. Neither resources nor managers should be confident in any such "cut" project. Confidence to give agressive estimates and at the same time accept resulting project schedules/promises comes from the ability to say that at least the foreseeable uncertainties are included in those promises. Ms. Cabanis-Brewin puts the blame on the estimating process, but those very processes are supported and driven by the scheduling and tracking processes that she sees as sufficient.
It is important to recognize that "best practice" is very rarely "common practice," and that there is a reason for this. "Traditional" PM approaches can can be sufficient. They can do this, by mixing and matching range estimates, Monte Carlo simulations, and a variety of other traditional "best practices," but if they are not already used, will still require a lot of what Ms. Cabanis-Brewin refers to as "training hours,...resistance to a change of mindset, and reluctance to abandon...accepted [and used] methods...No inconsiderable barrier." These same traditional practices are embedded in the Critical Chain process. But the power of the Critical Chain approach is that it takes very recognizable aspects of traditional PM and melds it into a comprehensive and coherent whole.
Ms. Cabanis-Brewin (and rglickman in the comment) laments the management practice of cutting durations. And yet she prefers to avoid "training and changes of mindset." When the training and change management has to deal with what looks like a complex smorgasbord of possible solutions (a la the PMBOK Guide) that need to be stitched together by the user, training the necessary players -- especially management -- does seem like a daunting task. The big benefit of the holistic coherency of Critical Chain approaches is that the common sense of the basic concepts can be very quickly introduced and embedded in the mindset of the organization. Saving Changes...
While I'm enjoying this web-based discussion on Project Management, some people prefer to participate in such discussions via email.
To that en, I've set up a [email protected], a discussion group aimed at providing an on-line venue to discuss the application of Critical Chain Scheduling and Buffer Management.
While Critical Chain has received a lot of attention in PMI's PM Network magazine, the latest version of the PMBOK Guide all but ignores the subject. One of the goals of this discussion group is to help clarify the place of Critical Chain-based project managment in the larger "body of knowledge."
While there are worthwhile and active on-line communities for general discussion of the Theory of Constraints (for example, APICS' CMSIG email list is the premiere source of overall TOC discussion) and Project Management (www.newgrange.com and www.gantthead.com host two of my favorite discussions in this arena), it is my feeling that a focused discussion venue for Critical Chain can provide benefit to those interested in the topic.
The target audience for this discussion list is broad, consisting of:
Those who are experienced with Critical Chain (either by living with it or by helping others implement it),
Those who are attempting to implement Critical Chain in their project(s),
Those who are curious about Critical Chain and the implications it could have for their project environment
and . . .
Those who have heard about Critical Chain and think that it is either misguided or that there is nothing really new about it, but are willing to discuss it with an open mind. It's this last target group that can add real spice to the discussion. (After all, as Eli Goldratt has said, "The strongest force FOR improvement is resistance to change.")
Anticipated topics for discussion include how Critical Chain-based project management relates to the various processes associated with traditional project management, including planning and scheduling, task estimating, progress tracking and assessment, risk management, resource management, and multi-project program management. There might also be discussion on the merits of software solutions for Critical Chain.
At the time of the launch of this list (Winter, 2000-01), I've jump-started the discussion with a few initial postings, on some of these topics. These postings will be archived in the FILES section on the eGroups website and will be automatically sent to new subscribers. Check out the site at:
Frank Patrick -- Moderator, CriticalChain
(and in the spirit of full disclosure, founder and principal consultant of Focused Performance, a TOC-based consultancy that provides Critical Chain implementation services.)
