<h2>The age-old problem</h2>The project management body of knowledge has evolved significantly in the last 50 years, but the world of projects has not shown commensurate improvement. Numerous studies over the years have shown that existing project management practices are not very effective. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:3999/2226;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-14-img-1-1735540762-1777289314_1779192640.jpg" width="3999" height="2226"></figure>Be it software development, engineering projects, construction projects, or New Product Development (NPD), project performance has been as bad as before. Such is the importance placed on project performance that projects which are delivered with full scope, on time, and within budget make it to newspaper headlines. This leads us to a fundamental question. Is there a specific scientific way of managing a project which can consistently deliver the desired results?  When we ask this question to numerous project managers, we hear responses like:<ul><li>“…the plan and the initial estimate have to be detailed and perfect.”  </li><li>“The project should have the best possible resources available when required.”  </li><li>“Vendors supplying to the projects have to be perfect.”  </li><li>“Requirements should be frozen upfront.” </li></ul> Such requirements can be met only in a perfect world - a world free of uncertainties. It will take a considerable amount of time and mammoth effort to create this ideal world. There are, however, numerous project organisations that are investing the required time and effort in trying to define a perfect estimation process, developing more detailed plans than before, defining change control processes, training resources, and vendors, and creating process templates. But project environments, by definition, are unique – the next project will always be different. So, by the time the company is ready with all the knowledge, processes, and skills, the next project’s requirements appear to be very different from the earlier one and one has to start all over again. The effort to reduce uncertainties seems like a never-ending journey.  The problem is even more profound in a multi-project environment, where resources are shared across projects. Projects in such environments are not only affected by their own uncertainties but also by delays in other projects. Resource dependencies, both within and across projects, increase the number of integration points in a project, leading to a cascading effect of delays from one project to another.  <h2>The solution that isn’t</h2>Why is the standard solution approach failing so consistently? Every time we start a project, we build a detailed plan, at times to an absurd level of granularity, estimate the task durations and assign resources with an expectation to meet all deadlines. This should ensure that the project is completed on time without the need for replanning. Unfortunately, things do not work out as planned. Problems seep in during execution requirements change, vendors do not deliver on time, work happens at a much slower rate than expected, approvals are delayed, and resources are not available because they are being used in other activities.  Over time, these uncertainties multiply and disrupt schedules. When deadlines are missed, resources are used to put out the ‘fires’; they multitask across projects, as project managers and resource managers get into conflicts over what is really urgent. Consequently, the project fails. In the post-mortem that follows, resource managers are called upon to explain the failure, and a solution is agreed upon: to make an even more detailed plan the next time. After bad experiences, project and resource managers make their plans more realistic, or, in other words, set task estimates with adequate buffers so they have a higher chance of meeting deadlines. However, uncertainties again hit the project and the marketing managers get into an eternal conflict with project and resource managers over how estimates are unreasonable.    <h2>Working against one’s intuitions</h2>The root cause of poor project performance is NOT inadequate buffers or uncertainties, but the fact that the BUFFERS ARE MORE THAN required.  All projects have more buffers than required, and it is the way in which projects are planned and managed that results in the waste of time and resource capacity. People intuitively understand that the project environment is full of uncertainties. Statistically speaking, one cannot make deterministic schedules in an uncertain environment. However, managers fail to understand that task duration is just an estimate, and in an environment where estimates are set as deadlines, people provide adequate buffers to give high probability durations. During execution, these high probability durations encourage two undesirable behaviours amongst resources – the Student syndrome (postponing the start of work close to the deadline) and the Parkinson’s Law effect (work expands to fill up the time allotted to it). When resources provide high-probability durations, they are aware of the ‘actual duration’ that will be required to execute the work.  Consequently, they invest the extra time in other ‘urgent’ work. Work begins only in the period close to the deadline. As someone remarked, deadlines provide resources with information about how much delay they can afford. This results in safety measures being put in place even before work has actually started. In some other cases, even if resources start work early and finish it much before the deadline, they do not want to report early completion. They are aware that this would prompt a cut for their time estimates in the succeeding project. So, they use the extra time to polish their work.  This phenomenon is common in environments where work norms have been set for the resources. In environments where a task is accomplished using multiple resources, Parkinson’s Law effect is seen in the form of resource managers deploying fewer resources to the job than needed to finish it before its scheduled completion. These behaviours prevent gains from getting reported and transferred – only the delays get passed on. As a result, the resource department involved in the last leg of the project has to compensate for the accumulated delays of all the previous departments. No wonder the departments involved in the last phase of the project (erection, testing, etc.) are the most stressful areas to work in.  Other mechanisms that jeopardise project schedules include measurements such as earned value, % completion, and so on. It is common knowledge that a project’s success lies in moving fast on the longest chain; however, measurements like earned value and % completion can encourage people to work towards a higher % completion, even at the cost of moving fast on the longest chain.  Many projects have failure designed right in the contract. The high-risk points in projects are integration points (statistically, the probability of an integration event occurring on time is inversely proportional to the number of dependent events feeding into it). Many contracts have payment milestones that are not in sync with the flow of work. At times, contractual milestones can create an artificial integration milestone, thereby further delaying project execution. Contractors working on such projects, sometimes focus on these milestones at the cost of project flow.  Multitasking, widely prevalent in multi-project environments, is the most detrimental phenomenon. Everyone understands the importance of finishing one task at a time. However, in a multi-project environment, resources seem to be perennially in a state of flux. Resources are employed in new tasks even before completing the first allotted task. This increases the elapsed time of tasks and projects and also leads to resource capacity loss due to multiple set-ups. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/3244;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-14-img-3-1735540784-1777289241_1779192725.jpg" width="4000" height="3244"></figure>When projects are delayed, people tend to think that the best solution is to start as soon as possible. When projects start ASAP, the work-in-progress (WIP) of tasks in front of resources is very high, and a high WIP environment leads to multitasking. Whenever there is the slightest interruption in task execution, resources shift to another task to use the idle time, thereby increasing the waiting time, and adding to the overall project lead time.  These undesirable practices, seen in almost all project environments, lead to a situation where task buffers in the projects are exhausted. The protective mechanism required for real Murphy is hardly available.  <h2>The solution: Uncommon sense</h2>What projects need is a powerful solution which meets the following criteria:<ul><li>Manage uncertainties differently rather than putting Herculean efforts to remove them  </li><li>Avoid falling into the trap of a more detailed plan  </li><li>A project management method which removes the harmful effects of Student syndrome, Parkinson’s Law and multitasking (avoid wastages of time and capacity)  </li><li>Reliable execution of project plans</li></ul>Fortunately, there is light at the other end! A technique called Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) offers a feasible solution, as it helps deliver results because of its unique ability to accommodate and manage uncertainties. CCPM, a unique approach to project management proposed by Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt, focuses on improving project flow and delivery reliability by managing resource constraints and accounting for variability in task execution. <h2>Understanding the new environment</h2><h5>Planning</h5>The project plans built in the rapid flow execution project have buffers removed from the tasks (task durations are made aggressive and seemingly unrealistic - with just a 50% chance of it completing in the planned duration) and placed at critical points where it matters the most - at the point where the feeding path meets the critical path and at the end of the critical path. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:3987/2589;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-14-img-2-1735540799-1777289375_1779192776.jpg" width="3987" height="2589"></figure>These buffers (also called project tolerance) are a block of unscheduled time which absorbs the uncertainties of the project during execution. Since buffers are aggregated at critical points, the overall buffer requirement is less than required when distributed to individual tasks. The project lead time is reduced right at the planning phase. With buffers removed from the tasks, the effects of Student syndrome and Parkinson’s Law are drastically reduced.  <h5>Multi-project scheduling</h5>In a multi-project environment, instead of projects starting ASAP, projects are released into the system based on the capacity of the most loaded resource. This helps in controlling the work in progress and the associated multitasking. <h5>Monitoring</h5>However, the key change required from the management’s end is an understanding that task durations in critical chain plans are aggressive and have a nearly 50% chance of being completed within the stated durations, so task deadlines cannot be used for project monitoring. Instead, the projects are monitored based on the rate of buffer consumption. <h5>Day-to-day priorities</h5>Day-to-day priorities for resources within and across projects are set by the rate of buffer penetration. <h2>The results</h2>The results are startling. Within a short implementation time, the project lead times have reportedly come down to about 70% of the original lead time (in some cases, even 50%). The overall throughput has gone up by around 50%. Rapid flow execution project has been successfully implemented in many project organisations in India and worldwide.

Key Takeaways

In the world of mega projects, time and cost overruns are the norm. A project completed on time and within budget is an exception, an achievement. But it does not have to be this way. Using rapid flow project execution, all projects can be completed on time and at cost.

Rapid flow project execution: Doing more projects - faster!

<h2>The age-old problem</h2>The project management body of knowledge has evolved significantly in the last 50 years, but the world of projects has not shown commensurate improvement. Numerous studies over the years have shown that existing project management practices are not very effective. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:3999/2226;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-14-img-1-1735540762-1777289314_1779192640.jpg" width="3999" height="2226"></figure>Be it software development, engineering projects, construction projects, or New Product Development (NPD), project performance has been as bad as before. Such is the importance placed on project performance that projects which are delivered with full scope, on time, and within budget make it to newspaper headlines. This leads us to a fundamental question. Is there a specific scientific way of managing a project which can consistently deliver the desired results?  When we ask this question to numerous project managers, we hear responses like:<ul><li>“…the plan and the initial estimate have to be detailed and perfect.”   </li><li>“The project should have the best possible resources available when required.”   </li><li>“Vendors supplying to the projects have to be perfect.”   </li><li>“Requirements should be frozen upfront.” </li></ul> Such requirements can be met only in a perfect world - a world free of uncertainties. It will take a considerable amount of time and mammoth effort to create this ideal world. There are, however, numerous project organisations that are investing the required time and effort in trying to define a perfect estimation process, developing more detailed plans than before, defining change control processes, training resources, and vendors, and creating process templates. But project environments, by definition, are unique – the next project will always be different. So, by the time the company is ready with all the knowledge, processes, and skills, the next project’s requirements appear to be very different from the earlier one and one has to start all over again. The effort to reduce uncertainties seems like a never-ending journey.  The problem is even more profound in a multi-project environment, where resources are shared across projects. Projects in such environments are not only affected by their own uncertainties but also by delays in other projects. Resource dependencies, both within and across projects, increase the number of integration points in a project, leading to a cascading effect of delays from one project to another.  <h2>The solution that isn’t</h2>Why is the standard solution approach failing so consistently? Every time we start a project, we build a detailed plan, at times to an absurd level of granularity, estimate the task durations and assign resources with an expectation to meet all deadlines. This should ensure that the project is completed on time without the need for replanning. Unfortunately, things do not work out as planned. Problems seep in during execution requirements change, vendors do not deliver on time, work happens at a much slower rate than expected, approvals are delayed, and resources are not available because they are being used in other activities.  Over time, these uncertainties multiply and disrupt schedules. When deadlines are missed, resources are used to put out the ‘fires’; they multitask across projects, as project managers and resource managers get into conflicts over what is really urgent. Consequently, the project fails. In the post-mortem that follows, resource managers are called upon to explain the failure, and a solution is agreed upon: to make an even more detailed plan the next time. After bad experiences, project and resource managers make their plans more realistic, or, in other words, set task estimates with adequate buffers so they have a higher chance of meeting deadlines. However, uncertainties again hit the project and the marketing managers get into an eternal conflict with project and resource managers over how estimates are unreasonable.    <h2>Working against one’s intuitions</h2>The root cause of poor project performance is NOT inadequate buffers or uncertainties, but the fact that the BUFFERS ARE MORE THAN required.  All projects have more buffers than required, and it is the way in which projects are planned and managed that results in the waste of time and resource capacity. People intuitively understand that the project environment is full of uncertainties. Statistically speaking, one cannot make deterministic schedules in an uncertain environment. However, managers fail to understand that task duration is just an estimate, and in an environment where estimates are set as deadlines, people provide adequate buffers to give high probability durations. During execution, these high probability durations encourage two undesirable behaviours amongst resources – the Student syndrome (postponing the start of work close to the deadline) and the Parkinson’s Law effect (work expands to fill up the time allotted to it). When resources provide high-probability durations, they are aware of the ‘actual duration’ that will be required to execute the work.  Consequently, they invest the extra time in other ‘urgent’ work. Work begins only in the period close to the deadline. As someone remarked, deadlines provide resources with information about how much delay they can afford. This results in safety measures being put in place even before work has actually started. In some other cases, even if resources start work early and finish it much before the deadline, they do not want to report early completion. They are aware that this would prompt a cut for their time estimates in the succeeding project. So, they use the extra time to polish their work.  This phenomenon is common in environments where work norms have been set for the resources. In environments where a task is accomplished using multiple resources, Parkinson’s Law effect is seen in the form of resource managers deploying fewer resources to the job than needed to finish it before its scheduled completion. These behaviours prevent gains from getting reported and transferred – only the delays get passed on. As a result, the resource department involved in the last leg of the project has to compensate for the accumulated delays of all the previous departments. No wonder the departments involved in the last phase of the project (erection, testing, etc.) are the most stressful areas to work in.  Other mechanisms that jeopardise project schedules include measurements such as earned value, % completion, and so on. It is common knowledge that a project’s success lies in moving fast on the longest chain; however, measurements like earned value and % completion can encourage people to work towards a higher % completion, even at the cost of moving fast on the longest chain.  Many projects have failure designed right in the contract. The high-risk points in projects are integration points (statistically, the probability of an integration event occurring on time is inversely proportional to the number of dependent events feeding into it). Many contracts have payment milestones that are not in sync with the flow of work. At times, contractual milestones can create an artificial integration milestone, thereby further delaying project execution. Contractors working on such projects, sometimes focus on these milestones at the cost of project flow.  Multitasking, widely prevalent in multi-project environments, is the most detrimental phenomenon. Everyone understands the importance of finishing one task at a time. However, in a multi-project environment, resources seem to be perennially in a state of flux. Resources are employed in new tasks even before completing the first allotted task. This increases the elapsed time of tasks and projects and also leads to resource capacity loss due to multiple set-ups. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/3244;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-14-img-3-1735540784-1777289241_1779192725.jpg" width="4000" height="3244"></figure>When projects are delayed, people tend to think that the best solution is to start as soon as possible. When projects start ASAP, the work-in-progress (WIP) of tasks in front of resources is very high, and a high WIP environment leads to multitasking. Whenever there is the slightest interruption in task execution, resources shift to another task to use the idle time, thereby increasing the waiting time, and adding to the overall project lead time.  These undesirable practices, seen in almost all project environments, lead to a situation where task buffers in the projects are exhausted. The protective mechanism required for real Murphy is hardly available.  <h2>The solution: Uncommon sense</h2>What projects need is a powerful solution which meets the following criteria:<ul><li>Manage uncertainties differently rather than putting Herculean efforts to remove them   </li><li>Avoid falling into the trap of a more detailed plan   </li><li>A project management method which removes the harmful effects of Student syndrome, Parkinson’s Law and multitasking (avoid wastages of time and capacity)   </li><li>Reliable execution of project plans</li></ul>Fortunately, there is light at the other end! A technique called Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) offers a feasible solution, as it helps deliver results because of its unique ability to accommodate and manage uncertainties. CCPM, a unique approach to project management proposed by Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt, focuses on improving project flow and delivery reliability by managing resource constraints and accounting for variability in task execution. <h2>Understanding the new environment</h2><h5>Planning</h5>The project plans built in the rapid flow execution project have buffers removed from the tasks (task durations are made aggressive and seemingly unrealistic - with just a 50% chance of it completing in the planned duration) and placed at critical points where it matters the most - at the point where the feeding path meets the critical path and at the end of the critical path. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:3987/2589;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-14-img-2-1735540799-1777289375_1779192776.jpg" width="3987" height="2589"></figure>These buffers (also called project tolerance) are a block of unscheduled time which absorbs the uncertainties of the project during execution. Since buffers are aggregated at critical points, the overall buffer requirement is less than required when distributed to individual tasks. The project lead time is reduced right at the planning phase. With buffers removed from the tasks, the effects of Student syndrome and Parkinson’s Law are drastically reduced.  <h5>Multi-project scheduling</h5>In a multi-project environment, instead of projects starting ASAP, projects are released into the system based on the capacity of the most loaded resource. This helps in controlling the work in progress and the associated multitasking. <h5>Monitoring</h5>However, the key change required from the management’s end is an understanding that task durations in critical chain plans are aggressive and have a nearly 50% chance of being completed within the stated durations, so task deadlines cannot be used for project monitoring. Instead, the projects are monitored based on the rate of buffer consumption. <h5>Day-to-day priorities</h5>Day-to-day priorities for resources within and across projects are set by the rate of buffer penetration. <h2>The results</h2>The results are startling. Within a short implementation time, the project lead times have reportedly come down to about 70% of the original lead time (in some cases, even 50%). The overall throughput has gone up by around 50%. Rapid flow execution project has been successfully implemented in many project organisations in India and worldwide.

<h6> Rapid flow project execution: Doing more projects - faster!</h6>

Download PDF

Vector Consulting Group - Research and Publications: Use Rapid Flow Project Execution to manage projects more efficiently; to reduces lead-time. Know more.