PM'S BEHAVIOR -PROJECT MANAGEMENT HINT

First, abandon the fast food order taking. Agreeing to everything does not work. Instead, ask questions until you unearth the acceptance criteria the executives will use to judge the project when it is done. The project team can not start work without it.

Asking these questions can irritate executives who don't know what they want. But the irritation is far less than what you will see after the project fails.

A savvy project manager responds to the anger at the scope questions with a reasonable statement like "How can I deliver the business result you want if I don't know precisely what it is?" Executives may not like this push back. But it is worth a bit of early executive dissatisfaction if it gives PM the opportunity to define a measured business result.

Executives think they know the project finish date. Don't start the project with executives finish date before knowing the availability of resources, estimated hours of work, how many people are needed. Then PM can give executives a planned completion date.      

MODERN TRENDS

As 2012 approaches, Microdesk, a leading provider of business and technology consulting services to help firms successfully plan, design, build and operate land and buildings, has announced its list of Architecture, Engineering, Construction & Operations (AECO) industry predictions and a resolution for the upcoming year at Autodesk University. 

Calling on their experience working closely with some of the nation's largest architecture, engineering and construction companies, Microdesk has compiled the following list of predictions that reflect the current technological innovations taking place in the AECO industry, highlighting trends that firms can stay ahead of in order to succeed in an increasingly competitive and tech-savvy market. The top five trends for 2012 that AECO companies should prepare for now include:

• Let's Go Virtual: Firms will look to pushing the envelope of what's possible in the cloud. 

Cloud computing and the utilization of virtualization technologies are allowing AECO firms to engage in new ways. This trend will continue to unfold in 2012, further pushing the boundaries of communication and collaboration among remote teams and virtual work environments. 

• Proliferation of Building Information Modeling (BIM): BIM is here to stay – and expect more companies to embrace this technology that is transforming an entire industry. 

As expected, we've seen growing adoption of Building Information Modeling (BIM) throughout the design and construction sectors. In 2012, BIM will continue to transform the industry, with more architectural firms and building owners recognizing the same opportunities, benefits and values. 

• Beyond the Desktop: Mobile will take AECO whenever and wherever, moving past desktop limitations. 

Mobile adoption throughout the AECO industry will rise as work traditionally limited to the desktop migrates to a mobile environment. More devices will be used to streamline workflows, share ideas and access data from anywhere. 

• Stronger Reliance on New Technologies: Firms will speed up to keep pace with innovation. 

The AECO industry will adopt technology faster in order to streamline processes, reduce costs and improve ROI. This will enable a more sustainable, manageable approach to the planning, design, building and operation of buildings and infrastructure. 

• A Holistic Approach: It's time for a collaboration the industry has never seen before. 

As the industry continues to educate itself on advanced technologies such as BIM, firms will see the need to increase collaboration amongst all project participants. More companies will focus on forging new relationships in order to operate under a holistic approach that serves the bottom line. 

Microdesk speaks from a unique position as a committed partner to many AECO firms. With a team that includes architects, engineers, surveyors, GIS analysts, facilities and asset managers, IT experts and software developers, Microdesk is able to gather valuable insight into the entire lifecycle of the building process. 

SCOPE CONTROL

Hope you had a great weekend. Watch this video on how to control project scope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuthRT6j6i4

PLANNING ESTIMATE-PROJECT MANAGEMENT HINT

Last week I got angry with one of my customers who wanted me to give him an estimate for the office building in a concept design phase. Using the skills I have developed during my project management education I did this estimate with the accuracy adequate to the information available and also give the range in which the cost could be. And surprisingly the customer was not happy to hear this statement. I needed some time to explain him some basic approaches used for making these kind of estimates.

When you want to do a quick estimate of project cost, you wan to use some type of high level, top-down approach. Depending on characteristics of the project and the type of information you have available, these approaches can actually be very accurate. Worst case, they should at least give you a decent ballpark estimate. From an expectation standpoint, this type of high level estimate should be -25% to +75% accurate. That is, if you estimate the cost of the project to be $100 000, you would expect the actual cost to be  in the range of $75 000 to $175 000. If your management or customer would like more accuracy than that, they need to give you more time to allow you to uncover more details, or lay the work out at a lower level.

What's your experience in such situations?     

CUMULATIVE IMPACT CLAIMS (LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY)-PART3

The Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA) publishes an estimating manual that has several appendices dealing with productivity losses. Appendix A of the manual deals with overtime and the effects of working overtime on productivity and cost. Appendix B, titled "Factors affecting productivity", lists 16 factors that can affect productivity, and provides a range for the percentage of loss that can occur for minor, average, and severe applications. The causes and the range of percentages (to be applied against labor costs) set forth in Appendix B are listed below:

                                                 minor             average        severe

1.Stacking of trades                    10%               20%            30%

2.Morale and attitude                    5%               15%            30%

3.Reassignment of manpower        5%               10%            15%

4.Crew size inefficiency               10%               20%            30%

5.Concurrent operations                5%               15%            25%

6.Dilution of supervision               10%               15%            25%

7.Learning curve                            5%               15%            30%

8.Errors and omissions                   1%                 3%              6%

9.Beneficial occupancy                  15%              25%            40%

10.Joint occupancy                         5%               12%            20%

11.Site access                                 5%               12%            30%

12.Logistics                                   10%               25%            50%

13.Fatigue                                       8%               10%            12%

14.Ripple                                       10%               15%            20%

15.Overtime                                   10%               15%            20%

16.Season and weather change       10%               20%            30%      

In reference to the factors listed in Appendix B, the MCAA manual states:

"These factors listed are intended to serve as reference only. Individual cases could prove to be too high or too low. The factors should be tested by your own experience and modified accordingly in your own use of them, since percentages of increased cost due to the factors listed may vary from contractor to contractor, crew to crew, and job to job."

The MCAA factors were developed by MCAA's management methods committee, but are not based on any empirical study determining the specific factors or the percentages of loss associated with the individual factors. Appendix B does not address how to apply these factors in the case where multiple factors occur. If simple arithmetic totals are used, extremely high lost-productivity factors could result even when multiple minor applications occur. The manual does not address whether the factors are to be applied to the entire project, to portions of the project, only to changed work, or only to specific areas. The factors presented appear to be  precisely what the manual states -for "reference only"-and should be used as a starting rather than an ending point for performing productivity analysis and predictions of productivity losses.

But the courts and Boards of contract appeals recognize the MCAA factors as a proper basis upon which to calculate lost labor productivity!