Critical chain project management - Gary Palmer

Gary Palmer
Critical Point Consulting 1
An extract of a presentation given to the APM Midlands Branch
on
25th September 2013

www.criticalpoint.co.uk
CriticalPointConsulting
2
Intellectual Property
This document is the Intellectual Property of
Critical Point Ltd
This document is supplied for the personal use of
the recipient and is not to be copied, edited,
transmitted or broadcast in part or in whole
without the prior permission of Critical Point Ltd.

Late
What do we mean by ‘Project Failure’?
3
Over Budget
Below Specification
Below Quality

Late
4
Over Budget
Below Specification
Below Quality
Why do we need to change? - 1

5
Productivity & Throughput:
Often Low
Excessive Wastage
Slow Progress
Costly

6
Business Impact:
Product Expensive
Late to Market
Customer Dissatisfaction
Reputation
Project Failure & Slow Costly Projects Cripples Business

1. The traditional methods in use,
VIRTUALLY GUARANTEE these results.
Why do we continue to have poor project performance?
7
2. We have not had a viable alternative.
Until now…

CCPM Statistics:
Project Delivery: 90%+ on time
Project Completion: 20% - 50% Faster
Productivity: 20% - 60% Increase
Throughput: 50% - 200% Increase
Critical Chain Project Management
8
Without increasing resources

9
By resolving:
Endemic problems in Traditional Proj. Mgmt
How Does CCPM Deliver These Improvements?

‘A set of interlinked techniques and tools that work
individually and collaboratively to significantly
improve the processes and operation of scheduling
and execution in project, programme and portfolio
environments’
What is CCPM?
10

environments’
What is CCPM?
11
Techniques: Working practices, Behaviours
Tools: Processes, Software

environments’
What is CCPM?
12
Individually: Resolve a specific problem
Collaboratively: In unison to support the whole

environments’
What is CCPM?
13
Improvements: Efficient processes
Faster operation

environments’
What is CCPM?
14
Scheduling: Optimum, realistic schedule
Effective contingency protection
Execution: Efficient working practices
Excellent progress visibility, focus, control

environments’
What is CCPM?
15
Projects: Single projects
Programme: Multi-project
Portfolio: Enterprise-wide

Traditional Project Management
The Five Elements of Failure
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule
16
So, what are the problems in Traditional Proj. Mgmt.?

Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule
17

Planned Completion
Attempt to impose a Rigid construct on a Variable situation
Actual dates will always change
… and will need constant and continued updating
09/09 1/10
13/09 23/09 04/10
10/091/09 15/09 23/09 1/10 15/10
10/09 15/09 21/09 07/10
23/0922/09
30/09
13/10
22/09 03/10 09/10
09/09 14/09 22/09 13/10
14/09 20/09 06/10 13/10
Task Deadline Scheduling – Planning to Fail
18

Shouldn’t early and late finishes balance out?
Usually not.
19

Potential
Early Finish
Parkinson’s Law – ‘Work expands to fill the time available’
Task
Deadline
Date
Missed
Time-Saving
20

3 d
5 days
7 days
Late Finish
Adds Time
Early Finish
Gain Lost
5 days
5 days 5 days
Planned
2 days added
to schedule
No benefit
to schedule
Parallel Converging Tasks tied to schedule dates
Losses Accumulate - Gains Don’t
…And the schedule moves out
21
5 days 5 days 5 days
✓
✓
✓

Dates attempt a rigid structure on a variable situation
Parkinson’s Law often prevents early finishes
Losses increase time and costs, not offset by gains
Schedule is guaranteed to require frequent changes
Project end-date slip is almost inevitable
Summary
22

Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
23
CCPM
Schedule
The Five Elements of Success

09/09 1/10
13/09 23/09 04/10
10/091/09 15/09 23/09 1/10 15/10
10/09 15/09 21/09 07/10
23/0922/09
30/09
13/10
22/09 03/10 09/10
09/09 14/09 22/09 13/10
14/09 20/09 06/10 13/10
24
Why use dates if we know that they are going to change?

No Due Dates / Deadlines
Schedule is used only as a Dependency Chart
Work is progressed as a ‘Relay Race’
No schedule updating necessary
CCPM Schedule
25

Potential
Early Finish
Task
Deadline
Date
CCPM Schedule
26
So now, without deadlines to fuel Parkinson behaviours,

27
High Levels of Embedded Contingency
CCPM Project-Level Contingency
Traditional Task-Level Contingency (Review)

Remove task-level contingency
28

29
Task Estimates have no in-built contingency
Estimates are based on ‘Aggressive-but-possible’ task times

Shorter Task Durations & much reduced timeline
No space for Parkinson or Student Syndrome
But where is our contingency now?
30

Buffer protects the Project – not individual tasks
Provides the project Commit Date
Aggregate Contingency
Project
Commit
Date
Project Buffer
31

Critical Task over-runs are absorbed by the Buffer
The Project ’Schedule’ remains unchanged
The Project Commit Date is not affected
Project Protection
Project
Commit
Date
Project Buffer
32

Project Protection
Project
Commit
Date
Project Buffer
Buffer Status shows the impact on contingency
And we are able to measure and manage our contingency
Buffer
Status
33

If a Critical Task finishes early…
The time saved is ‘added back’ into our contingency
Buffer Status always shows the latest position
Project Protection
Project
Commit
Date
Project Buffer
34
Buffer
Status

Project Contingency which results in
Student Syndrome which results in
Parkinson’s Behaviours and
Streamlined Schedules with
Aggregated Uncertainties are built into a
Visible, Manageable Contingency which prevents
Protected From Delays and
Fast and Efficient Projects which are
Do not require Schedule Changes
35
Project-Level Contingency Cascade

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
36
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency

Task H
Task F
Task I
Task B Task C Task D
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E
Critical Path ignores resources
Critical Path based ONLY on task dependency & duration
Valid only in an environment without resource constraints
But what happens if we have resource contentions?
Critical Path – A dangerous path to follow?
37

Critical Path Problems
Resource Contentions
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E
38

Post–CP Resource Levelling
Task E
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task B Task D
Task G
Task A Task J
Levelling resolves the issue… but increases timescales
And the vision of the Critical Path dominates
…and so tactical manoeuvres soon start...
Task C
39

Avoidance Tactics 1- Multi-Tasking
Task H
Task B Task DTask A Task J
Task E
Quality may be reduced
Predictability becomes less certain
Work becomes fragmented and control less easy
But because Multi-tasking takes longer…
40

2 - Overtime
Task H
Task E
…Extra hours need to be worked
Scheduling becomes difficult
And Control starts to ebb away
41

Slippage
Task H
Task E
Multi-tasking is high risk
High potential for slippage
Diminishing returns due to staff morale / burnout
Schedule long since become unmanageable
42

Scope Cut
Task H
Task E
Last resort to hit target date is a Scope Cut
May cause work in other areas
Further degrades quality
‘Project Meltdown’
ScopeCutScopeCut
ScopeCut
43

Incorrect Dependency Path often with
Misleading Priorities which encourages a spiral of
Ignoring Resources Contentions leads to an
Unstable Schedule which needs
Fire-fighting tactics which leads to an
Unrealistic Completion Dates and
Out of Control Project with an
Critical Path Cascade
44
Frequent Changes

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
45
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain

Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E
CCPM Critical Chain
1. Build Dependency Network As Normal
Include Resource Requirements
46

CCPM Critical Chain
2. CCPM Software - Resource Levelling
Task E
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
47
Prevents over-allocation of resources

CCPM Critical Chain
3. CCPM Software - Identify the Critical Chain
Task E
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
CCPM treats Resource Constraints as dependencies…
…which changes the project priority path
Priority sequence ‘jumps’ to resource dependencies
A realistic critical sequence – The Critical Chain
48

Critical Chain / Critical Path Comparison
Task E
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task H
Task F
Task I
Task G
Task A Task J
Task E
Critical Chain
Critical Path
49

Correct Dependency Path with
Realistic Priorities which provides a
Including Resources Contentions leads to a
Stable Schedule that
Realistic Project Duration and
Project Under Control with a
CCPM Critical Chain
Critical Chain Cascade
50
Does not need changes

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
51
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain

3d
Task 1: 9 days Task 2: 9 days Task 3: 9 days
Time
3d 3d3d 3d 3d 3d 3d 3d
Without Multi-tasking:
With Multi-tasking:
27 Days
29 Days
• Nothing gets completed until day 23.
2 days added to overall duration.
Quality likely to be poorer.
Day 23
Day 9
• Everything is late.
Task 1: +14 days late(+155%)
Task 2: + 8 days late (+42%)
Task 3: +2 days late (+22%)
Traditional Project Management Multi-tasking:
The Illusion of being productive
52

Multi-tasking; The SINGLE best way…
…to screw up TWO JOBS.
It slows everything down
It reduces quality
It wastes time and costs more
It is bad for morale
It complicates scheduling & control
It removes planning predictability
It causes delivery delays
Summary
Traditional Project Management Multi-tasking:
53

Poor Measures
& Control
54
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking

One task only worked on at a time
No interruptions
Dedicated work until complete
CCPM - Task Management
Single Tasking
55

3d
Time
3d 3d3d 3d 3d 3d 3d 3d
With Multi-tasking:
27 Days
29 Days
• Nothing gets completed until day 23.
2 days added to overall duration.
Quality likely to be poorer.
Day 23
Day 9
• Everything is late.
Task 1: +14 days late(+155%)
Task 2: + 8 days late (+42%)
Task 3: +2 days late (+22%)
Traditional Project Management Multi-tasking
56

Time
27 Days
CCPM Single Tasking
The reality of being productive

‘Good’ Multi-Tasking
Non-Project / background, no dependencies or deadlines.
Training/education. QA tasks. Flexi-time.
‘Bad’ Multi-Tasking
‘Double-booked’ on overlapping tasks.
Covering Additional / Support roles.
‘Ugly’ Multi-Tasking
Personnel allocated simultaneous project tasks.
Endemic, cultural.
CCPM Single Tasking
Can Multi-tasking be removed?
58

It improves quality
It reduces time & money spent
It simplifies scheduling & control
It enables planning predictability
It is good for morale
It speeds everything up
Summary
CCPM Single Tasking
59

Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
60
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking

Use of ‘Percentage Complete’:
Report to expectation – no bad news to give
Can’t be challenged – only task owner knows
Often simply aligned with time used
Optimism that time can be pulled back
Reality is often ignored - An easy place to hide
Progress Measurement
61

Measurements -
Percentage Complete, Time / money used / left
Position against base line, Milestones achieved…
What do they tell us?
How much time/money used - Retrospective
What do they tell us about the future?
Very little…
62
What is the Only Question PM’s get asked?

Are we on target?
What do we really need to know?
How exposed are we?
Have we got enough safety in hand?
Is there a trend?
Is it upward or downward?
Should we be taking any action?
Where should we be taking action?
63

Often not a true / realistic picture
Real Status / safety contingency is hidden
False sense of schedule security
Leads to persisting ‘90% complete’ / late-emerging issues
Can cause major / incorrect re-scheduling
Doesn’t answer the Big Question
Summary
64

Multi-tasking
65
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking
Good Measures
Visible Control

CCPM Progress Reporting:
Frequent – daily
Is task complete?
If not, how much task-time left remaining?
66
CCPM Progress Measurement

‘Critical Chain’ Completed
✓
✓✓
Critical Chain completed reported into CCPM software
67
A
B C D
E F

Contingency Buffer Usage
68
+3
+3
A
B C D
E F
✓

Task C has no effect on buffer
69
Buffer
Used
+3
+3
+3 +3
Buffer
Remaining
A
B C D
E F
✓

Early report from task D that an additional 5 days will be required
This report also feeds into the Buffer usage
Provides earliest notification of expected position
70
Buffer
Used
+3
+3 +5
+3 +3
Buffer
Remaining
DCB
A E F
+5

Amount of critical work completed: Critical Chain
Put these two together…
71
Now we have two key measurements:
How much contingency remaining: Project Buffer

Singular
Objective
Predictive
Easily interpreted
Auto constructed
Up-to-date
Immediate
The Fever Chart
72

Daily Reporting:
Progress is always up-to-date
Project position is always up-to-date
Summary - 1
73

‘Remaining Duration’ Reporting:
More accurate / realistic picture
Focusses the task worker
Real Status / safety contingency is visible
Persisting ‘90% complete’ syndrome banished
Prevents late-emerging issues
Summary - 2
74

Fever Chart:
Combined view of progress and contingency
Trends provide early warning
Objective, singular, visual, always available
Prevents unnecessary schedule changes
Answers the Big Question!
Summary - 3
75

Multi-tasking
76
CCPM
Schedule
Project-Level
Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking
Good Measures
Visible Control
Yes – but not just 5 problems, CCPM fixes 2 more as well.
So, have we fixed all of the problems?

The Ever
Changing
Schedule
77

The Five Problems
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule
78What other problem is common to each of these?

Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
79Each individual issue causes schedule changes
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule

Project-Level
Contingency
Rem. Duration
Visible Control
Single-tasking
Critical Chain
CCPM
Schedule
CCPM Schedule Stability
80
Each CCPM element fixes individual problems AND
removes the causes of Schedule Changes

Vicious
Circles
81

Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
82
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule
But…Not only does each problem area cause schedule
changes…

Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
83Each individual problem area perpetuates others
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule

Self-Perpetuation
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
Schedule
Changes
84Locked-in to self-perpetuating systemic failure
Task-Level
Contingency
Poor Measures
& Control
Multi-tasking
Critical Path
Deadline
Schedule

Project-Level
Contingency
Rem. Duration
Visible Control
Single-tasking
Critical Chain
CCPM
Schedule
CCPM Schedule Stability
85
CCPM removes the causes of individual problems,
constant schedule changes and systemic failure

Seven Problems of Traditional PM…
…and the Seven Solutions of CCPM
Traditional Problems:
Deadline Scheduling
Task-Level Contingency
Critical Path
Multi-tasking
Poor Measures & Control
Schedule Volatility
Problem Perpetuation
86
CCPM Solutions:
Flexible Scheduling
Project-Level Contingency
Critical Chain
Single-tasking
Good Measures & Control
Schedule Stability
Solution Constancy
Traditional v’s CCPM – Overall Summary
+ Poor Work Environment
= ‘Progressive Excellence’
+ Good Work Environment
= ‘Terminal Mediocrity’

Programme
& Portfolio
Myth
Achieving Terminal
Mediocrity on a
Large Scale
87

The Programme & Portfolio Myth
1. That the more projects you start, the more you will get done
88
CCPM in Programme and Portfolio
Environments

KR
KR
Overlapping Projects + Overloaded Resources
KR
KR
KR
Key Resource
KR
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
89Projects stopped by resource contention

3mths
Project 1: 9mths Project 2: 9mths Project3: 9mths
3mths 3mths3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths
Project Fragmentation:
27 mths
30 mths
mth 23
mth 9
Overloaded Programme
1. Project Fragmentation
Overloading can lead to project fragmentation
Fragmentation delays all projects
90

3mths
Project 1: 9 mths Project 2: 9mths Project3: 9mths
3mths 3mths3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths 3mths
27 mths
30 mths
2. Increased Exposure to Change
9 mths
21 mths
Longer elapsed time gives more exposure time for changes
Changes generate more work and extend projects
Meanwhile unfinished work gets ‘rusty’
91

Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Perception Reality at Working Level
3. Generates Multi-tasking
Overloading creates multi-tasking at the working level
Causes constant schedule changes
Causes fighting for resources
Slows all projects
92

Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Plan Reality
4. Loss of Completion Predictability
?
?
Multi-tasking leads to Fragmentation
Fragmentation makes completion unpredictable
?
93

Project fragmentation causes delays
Increased exposure to changes
Drives multi-tasking
Competition for Resources
Loss of Planning Predictability
Summary
94

1. That the more projects you start, the more you will get done’
… You won’t
95

So what can we do to improve this?
1. That the more projects you start, the more you will get done
96
… You won’t

Recognise that:
Increasing work in progress slows throughput
Decreasing work in progress speeds up throughput
CCPM in Multi-Project Environment:
Maximising Throughput
97

‘Reducing Work in Progress:
Reduce & Limit ‘In progress’ projects to optimum
‘Stagger’ new project starts
Implement a ‘Pull’ System: not a ‘Push’ System
98

KR
KR
Overlapping Projects + Overloaded Resources
“It’s all TOP PRIORITY”
KR
KR
KR
Key Resource
KR
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
99Projects stopped by resource contention

KR
KR
KR
Project 1
KR Project 3
Stagger Project Starts on Key Resource
Project 2KR
KR
Key Resource
100Stagger projects = faster completions

Reducing WIP accelerates throughput
Staggering starts reduces key resource contention
Multi-tasking greatly reduced
Competition for resources reduced
Planning predictability restored
Increased throughput improves profitability
Summary
101

It’s what you finish…
…not what you start.
102

Singular
Objective
Predictive
Easily interpreted
Auto constructed
Up-to-date
Immediate
CCPM Programme Management
The Programme Fever Chart
103
Programme Fever Chart focusses on projects that need attention

Progress Monitoring
Drill Down for detail
104

The Evidence
for CCPM
105

High Tech
3M
Advasense Technologies
Agilent Technologie
AMCC
AMD
Avaya
Avitronics
Barco
Bell Canada
BT Radianz
Computer Sciences Corp
Cray, Inc.
ECI Telecom Ltd.
Eclozion Informatique
Ericsson
Estonian Telephone
Fairchild Semiconductor
Graftech
Hewlett Packard
Hitachi Computer Products
Honeywell
IBM
Ismeca Europe Semiconductor
ITT Canon
L-3 Communication Systems
LSI Logic
Lucent Technologies
Marvell
High Tech /
Medtronic, Inc.
Microsoft
Motorola
Numonyx
Philips Semiconductors
Pioneer
Qualcomm
RSA Security
SanDisk
Sapient
Seagate Technology LLC
Sony Ericsson
Spirent Communications
Sprint
Sun Microsystems
Symbian
Tadiran Spectralink
Tektronix
TT Technologies
Tundra Semiconductor
Workscape
Xerox Corporation
Business Education
Ashridge Management College
Project Management Institute
London Business School
+ Over 160 Universities
Life Sciences
Abbott Labs
Adirondack Surgery
AHIS-St. Vincent Health
AMGEN
Andover Healthcare Inc.
Arterain Medical
Baxter
Boston Scientific
Central Dupage Health
Bovis Pharmaceuticals
Converge Medical Inc.
Cytori Therapeutics, Inc.
Edwards Lifescience
Ethicon
Gambro Healthcare
GlaxoSmithKline
Johnson & Johnson
Medtronic
Merck Medco Managed Care
Pfizer
Pharmacia
Roche Diagnostics
Spectranetics
Tenet Health Care
Tyco Healthcare
United Behavioral Health
Vascore Medical
Ventana
Companies Using CCPM - 1
106

Aerospace and Defense
Aerojet Corporation
Air Force Institute of Tech.
BAE Systems
The Boeing Company
General Dynamics
Halliburton
ITT Space Systems
Lockheed
NASA
Northrop Grumman
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Raytheon
SAAB Avionics
US Air Force
Consumer Products
Coca-Cola
Colgate Palmolive
Del Monte Foods
Fonterra
Gillette
Heineken
IKEA
Kraft Foods
McKee Foods
Nike
Philip Morris
Industrial
ABB
Accoat
Advanced Energy Technology
Alcan
Alfa Lava
American Rubber Products
Applied Plasmonics
AREVA
Atomic Energy of Canada .
Balfour Beatty
Bimba Manufacturing
Bosal
Bosch Rexroth Ltda.
Brice Manufacturing
BVR Technologies Company
C.F. Roark Welding.
Callaway Golf
Celite Corporation s
Conoco
Corning Cable Systems
Cueros Industrializados
DaimlerChrysler UK
Danfoss
Delta Faucet Company
Detroit Diesel Reman-West
DuPont
Eastman Kodak Company
Industrial/
ExxonMobil Chemical
Fisher Controls
Fluid Brasil Sistemas
Fluke Corporation
Fuel Cell Energy
GE Industrial Systems
Hach
Honda
ITT Corporation
Kawasaki Heavy Industries,
M&M Precision Systems
Marshall Industries
Merichem Chemicals
Milwaukee Forge
Rail care
Raychem
Rolls Royce
Siemens
Sylvania
Unilever
Tata
UPC Technology
Volvo
Source:TOC International, Gatlinburg, TN.
Companies Using CCPM - 2
107

Space Shuttle Software Development Project
Projects completed up to 42% ahead of schedule.
Space Shuttle Hardware Development Project
Hardware delivered 36% early, 20% under budget, exceeded quality expectations
Space Shuttle Engineering Document Development Project
Schedule reduction of 58%, exceeded customer expectations
Boeing Space Shuttle Development Results using CCPM:
Some Results:
After having used it in 2,523 public works projects in 2007
and over 4,000 public works projects in 2008, the Japanese
government has recommended that critical chain project
management “be used on all projects henceforth
(approximately 20,000 projects per year).”
Japanese Government
108

Professional Recognition
APM Body of Knowledge.
"An alternative to creating networks based on activity dependencies is to use a
technique called critical chain. This method considers the availability of resources
and the interdependencies between resources.“ - APM Body of Knowledge 6th edition (2012) p 155
Association for Project Management
PMI Body of Knowledge
“Critical chain is a schedule network analysis technique that modifies the project
schedule to account for limited resources. Initially, the project schedule network
diagram is built using duration estimates with required dependencies and defined
constraints as inputs. The critical path is then calculated. After the critical path is
identified, resource availability is entered and the resource-limited schedule result is
determined. The resulting schedule often has an altered critical path.”
PMI BoK 4th edition. Ch 6 Time Management p.155
Project Management Institute
109

Professional Recognition
Conference Presentation
Critical Chain Project Management using Microsoft Project 2010 and Prochain:
Implementing Project Portfolio Management.
The Theory of Constraints International Certification Organization (TOCICO) is a global
not-for-profit certification organization for TOC practitioners, consultants and
academics to develop and administer certification standards, and facilitate the
exchange of latest developments. TOCICO has run an international conference for the
past 8 years.
110

Development:
Result of many years of continuous development
Based on Theory of Constraints (TOC) 1980’s
Needed software to be truly viable
Software to slow to develop
Now several good software products
Key Publications by Eliyah Goldratt:
1984 'The Goal' – TOC in manufacturing
1997 ‘ Critical Chain’ - Applying TOC to project management
CCPM Potted History
111

Not just software!
Often considerable culture change
Requires education throughout company
People need time to get used to new working methods
No ‘Big Bang’
Start with single project ‘Pilot’
Progress to Multi-project (Programme)
Progress to Portfolio (Organisation)
CCPM Implementation
112

Over 15 years experience in implementing CCPM
Successful implementations of CCPM in
Multiple companies / Multiple industries / Multiple countries
Consider what CCPM could do for your organisation
Contact us for
a free CCPM overview presentation
in your company
Critical Point Consulting
113

‘Critical Chain Project Management presents us with an opportunity to plan
projects well for maybe the very first time. We should make sure that we
break with our old traditions of how we have done things in the past, and re-
plan our projects from scratch.
But planning is only half the story. The real power of CCPM comes from the
control afforded during the execution or deployment of the job. Buffer status
and buffer management allows us unprecedented feedback on the progress
of the project and where to focus attention and where not.
And maybe this is the most important factor in the whole approach.
We have a totally new and systemic way to manage projects. We should
make the very most of this opportunity.’
Dr. Kelvin Youngman
Last Word
114

Critical chain project management - Gary Palmer

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Critical chain project management - Gary Palmer

Similar to Critical chain project management - Gary Palmer (20)

More from Association for Project Management

More from Association for Project Management (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Critical chain project management - Gary Palmer