Organisations dealing with projects often make the mistake of adapting the same best practices that have evolved in the operations or production environment. Despite knowing that the project’s key commitments (time, budget, and scope/quality) are interrelated, control actions are taken as though each commitment can be achieved discretely. The <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.vectorconsulting.in/en/research-and-publication/articles/critical-chain-project-management-doing-more-projects-faster/">Critical Chain Project Management</a> (CCPM) framework offers a holistic approach to project management. A few of its nuances, however, are far from popular.   <h2>Project post-mortem and a few wrong diagnoses</h2>When it comes to managing time, in hindsight, everybody is wiser. Planning is usually blamed for poor project performance. A post-mortem of the project reveals that there was plenty of opportunity to start many tasks much earlier. It seems that with ample time, price negotiation with suppliers could have been better, alternative sourcing was possible, and scope control would have been much better. All this in hindsight. This newly gained perspective impacts the next project from the start.  'Start as soon as possible.' What’s wrong with this approach?Does starting as soon as possible really help the cause of completing a project early?Not really. About 70%-80% of tasks in a project are not that time-consuming. That means starting them early does not reduce the project’s total duration. But can these tasks delay project completion?Let us take an example that applies to most projects, such as large, green-field plant projects, high capital expenditure (CAPEX) capacity enhancement projects, multi-project engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) businesses, and custom-engineered product businesses. An activity such as ‘designing and releasing drawings’ is a basic task across all of them. It leads to major tasks such as civil construction at the site, manufacturing of equipment and parts, procurement of structural and other items, and many service contracts. The task manager (design engineer) responsible for this task usually handles many such tasks and sometimes works across multiple projects as well. This activity requires input from various departments, agencies, and suppliers, and often requires decisions from top management.  The pressure to begin is relatively higher when it comes to major tasks with longer durations, where the progress of the project can be visible. For instance, civil construction and manufacturing of equipment involve high expenditure. This phase of the project is sort of a rush hour for the design engineer. There will be many expediters from subsequent tasks urging the engineer to release drawings so they can start work.  However, these days, designing and releasing drawings is not a time-consuming task for a seasoned design engineer. What consumes time is the invisible coordination required to integrate all inputs into the design. Missing client inputs and decisions are common issues that design engineers must tackle.  In the absence of timely inputs, the engineer ends up moving from one design to another, not completing any. The task manager also struggles to keep up his credibility in meeting the schedule, and resorts to one of the following: <ol><li>Get relieved from expediting pressures by releasing partial drawings so that the subsequent task (civil construction) can start. Of course, this eventually will delay the completion of the task.</li><li>Create designs based on assumptions (without waiting for actual data), and release drawings with conditions and omissions</li><li>Pass on drawings that are relatively easy to finalise without much integration of inputs. Tasks on the longest path require relatively greater integration and are much more difficult to finalise.</li></ol>Each of the above actions has its consequences. Actions 1 and 2 lead to a situation in which civil work either slows or is interrupted, leading to poor utilisation of civil resources. To improve the utilisation of civil resources, more civil work fronts are opened. The resultant effect is frequent day-to-day expediting, priority changes that cause bad multitasking, leading to further interruptions, rework, and associated delays. Drawings go through several revisions, creating a perpetual gap between drawings and actual site work. No wonder insisting on ‘as-built drawing’ has become a well-set industry practice.Action 3 leads to a situation in which the civil, manufacturing, and purchasing departments can obtain easier designs early; civil work fronts, procurement, and manufacturing items required later in the project are addressed much earlier. The project budget is eaten up by unplanned activities, leaving the finance team grappling with a fund flow that’s gone haywire.In such project environments, expecting tasks to be completed as per plan is nothing short of expecting to win the lottery consistently. So, what goes wrong? Do we stumble on a few missing steps? Let us study this carefully.Every project goes through the same cycle. Task types may differ, but the end consequences are the same. Unlike operations or production environments, task durations of a project are not deterministic. Project tasks are not expected to be completed exactly within the planned duration. Even though uncertainty is the hallmark of projects, its level varies throughout a project. The level goes higher at integration points. With the increased number of predecessor tasks, the probability of timely completion of integration tasks drops sharply (for instance, the example described above: designing and releasing drawings, final assembly and testing, erection and commissioning, etc.).  Whenever the project flows through these pockets of integration, it experiences turbulence. The flow rate of tasks goes down and remains unpredictable. Failing to recognise such flow entities that dictate the speed of the project and pushing all tasks results in only negative ramifications, thus giving us the impression that bad planning is the cause of all failures.    <h2>A simple but robust solution</h2>Planning serves its purpose when it helps execution. The overall project progress is usually measured by extrapolating the current rate of task progress to the project plan. Decisions are made, and corrective actions are taken with the assumption that the rate of task progress will continue. But this assumption is not valid for tasks at integration. Integration tasks never experience linear flow, and task progress remains erratic. This can be solved if there is a high synchronisation of inputs from various predecessor agencies/departments. But it is not easy for the owner of the integration task to navigate different corporate power centres and secure subordination from multiple agencies/departments.  Identify the Flow entities: Before putting the project plan to work and expecting benefits, the first step is to identify the flow entities within the overall project. Tasks demanding high integration of inputs should be examined first. Merit of any task is usually biased by its associated cost, duration, safety risk, and many other factors, but never by the level of synchronisation it demands.Full-kit gate control: After identifying the flow entity, synchronisation between multiple agencies can be forced in when there is a strong gate after the integration point. This can be achieved by not allowing the chosen integration task to release any output discretely to subsequent tasks (no piecemeal), and by not allowing subsequent work to start until the integration task is complete in full (full kit).This action ensures that delay becomes ‘visible’ which in turn triggers expediting and focused management attention at the right time. For example, civil construction is not allowed until the entire set of design and drawings is complete. Flow monitoring: Full-kit gate control indeed provides a visual alert for delays. However, if the delays are not prevented in the first place, there will be pressure to break the full kit rule, which will lead to associated problems. Delays in providing and receiving inputs increase when there are loops of iterations (information moving back and forth between agencies and departments). Such task dependencies are difficult to represent in the project network. Having daily cross-functional meetings (flow meetings), chaired by an empowered person to resolve open issues, can break the loops of iterations. Project planning: The functioning of a traditional planning team resembles a game of Angry Birds played by a young lad who repeatedly tries to hit the target. Planning should help execution, not the other way round. A large project plan with independent task milestones creates hidden buffers and hinders the early detection of issues. Shifting the safety (buffers) from the tasks to the end of their respective task sequences (paths) conserves overall project safety through the aggregation effect. (Even though the project budget is allocated for each task owner, money is not disbursed upfront. Why take chances with time?)CCPM helps establish buffered project plans for each independent area and enables releases for execution upon full kit completion.  Project execution: In a large project, several tasks are executed simultaneously. Every task delay does not delay the entire project. CCPM is the only system that assigns task priorities based on their impact on overall project completion. A suitable graph (fever chart) can give a clear picture of the status of all the project areas. Along with monitoring daily flow, conducting ground-level meetings, and periodic buffer management reviews by top management to proactively resolve issues, these benefits the project more than chasing date after date.CCPM is a holistic approach for project management. <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.vectorconsulting.in/en/">Vector Consulting Group</a> has achieved significant results for its clients in project-based business by leveraging CCPM principles. By implementing CCPM, VCG has achieved a 25% reduction in project lead time and above 50% reduction in design lead time, with significant reductions in drawing revisions.

BA Read More

Problem: Project-based organisations often start tasks early and track individual milestones, hoping to complete projects faster. However, this practice causes misaligned priorities, delays at integration points, and rework, especially in high-coordination tasks like design. Solution: Instead, if Flow-based principles are established -such as identifying flow entities, enforcing full-kit gates, placing task buffers at path ends, holding daily cross-functional flow meetings, and using buffer management to set priorities- the flow of projects becomes seamless. Benefits: By applying these principles, companies have achieved a 25% reduction in project lead time, more than 50% reduction in design lead time, fewer revisions, improved resource utilisation, and far more reliable project delivery.

Key Takeaways

Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) has a transformative impact in optimising project efficiency and timelines.