31
Prepared by Alastair Laird Project Time and Cost Delivering Nothing Efficiently an EVMS journey Decommissioning Challenges Industrial Reality, APM Edinburgh April 2013

Delivering nothing efficiently

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

This presentation was delivered by Alastair Laird at the 2013 APM Scottish Conference

Citation preview

Page 1: Delivering nothing efficiently

Prepared by Alastair LairdProject Time and Cost

Delivering Nothing Efficiently an EVMS journey

Decommissioning ChallengesIndustrial Reality, APM Edinburgh

April 2013

Page 2: Delivering nothing efficiently

AGENDA

• Overview of UK Nuclear Decommissioning

• Problem Solving (Tables) - Issues- Value for Money Challenge

• EVMS Journey

Page 3: Delivering nothing efficiently

Overview

3

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)

• Non-Departmental Public Body established in 2005

• Remit to clean up the civil public sector nuclear legacy

• Sites and facilities built from 1940’s onwards

• Annual funding of ~£2.8Bn

• Head Office based in West Cumbria

• Total M&O staffing circa 16,000

• Has responsibility for all civil nuclear decommissioning & Waste Management for most of the older civil power and R&D support sites – former BNFL & UKAEA sites.

Page 4: Delivering nothing efficiently

M&O Nuclear Contracting Model

4

1 Ownership of SLC shares2 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) Maintenance & Operations Contract3 Parent Company Agreement4 Payment of dividends generated by SLC5 Statutory Consultation6 Regulatory Oversight of SLC / Licensing / Authorisation

Page 5: Delivering nothing efficiently

Decommissioning OverviewTypical Nuclear Site Cycle

5

BUILD NEW SITE

PROJECT

7 YEARS

GENERATION

OPERATIONAL

40 YEARS

DEFUELING OPERATIONAL

PROJECT

3 YEARS

BUILD ILW (WASTE)

FACILITIES & STORE

6 YEARS

WASTE RETRIEVAL,

PASSIVATION & STORAGE

OPERATION

6 YEARS

INITIAL DEPLANTING

AND DEMOLITION

PROJECT

6 YEARS

CARE & MAINTENANCE

50 YEARS

FINAL SITE CLEARANCE

PROJECT

10 YEARS

Page 6: Delivering nothing efficiently

Project / Portfolio / Programme?

Sites All Shutdown

Ageing Facilities

Legacy Hazards

Funding Constraints

Site staff mainly

Operators

6

Page 7: Delivering nothing efficiently

Strategy

7

• Who wants to fly first?• What to do when food is scarce?• Planning scenarios?• Integrated programmes options?

Page 8: Delivering nothing efficiently

Magnox (Power Station) Example

8

Magnox Optimised Decommissioning Programme (2011)

MODP is a single integrated BaselineStrategic Programmes of Work (10 Sites, 22 Reactors) • PONDS Decommissioning• FED (Fuel Element Debris) Treatment• ILW Management• Plant & Structures• Graphite Disposal• Restructuring and Hotel Cost Challenge

Operating Plan• Operational life extension• Defueling Optimisation

Quiescent State (Care and Maintenance)• Each site can be different• End states - funding & ‘hotel cost’ burden and need for phasing• Transition Planning• Lead and lag concepts – site pairings and technology selection options

10 (2005)

2 (2008)

M&O (Site)Contracts

1 (2011)

Page 9: Delivering nothing efficiently

Sellafield – Reprocessing Legacy

9

Page 10: Delivering nothing efficiently

Scope

Theory• Framework for EVMS• WBS, Organizational Structure, and Responsibility Assignment Matrix• Schedule Baseline and Cost Estimate Development• WBS reporting levels & Control Accounts• Performance Measurement Baseline• Forecasting of EAC• Performance Management

Practice• UK Nuclear Decommissioning• Multiple site scenario• Funding Constraints• Stakeholders

10

Page 11: Delivering nothing efficiently

EVMS - Intro

• EEarned

• VValue

• MManagement

• SSystem

EarnedWork Completed / Cost Spent

Value …for MoneyExpected PerformanceDelivery against Targets/Estimates

Management Metrics / TargetsSchedule Performance ManagementCost Performance Management

Systems of control and calculationBasis of SchedulingBasis of Cost Estimating WBS / Control AccountsTrending/ReportingChange Control

11

Page 12: Delivering nothing efficiently

EVMS - Intro

12

• What is Earned Value Management?– It is a methodology for driving performance from an integrated set of policies,

procedures, and practices to support program and complex project management as a decision enhancing tool.

– It is a critical component of risk management.– Works mainly with complex programs - cost reimbursable type – An EVMS helps integrate the project work-scope, cost, and schedule into a single

performance measurement baseline (PMB).• EVMS reliably tracks:

– Planned Value, or budgeted cost for work scheduled (BCWS),– Earned Value , or budgeted cost for work performed (BCWP), and– Actual cost of work performed (ACWP).

• EVMS provides performance measures - against the PMB.• EVMS provides trend analysis and forecast capability of estimated cost at

completion (EAC).• EVMS provides a sound basis for variance analysis and corrective action planning.

Page 13: Delivering nothing efficiently

EVMS – Do we need it?

13

• By comparison, Earned Value Management has three data sources:– the budget (or planned) value of work scheduled– the actual value of work completed– the “earned value” of the physical work completed

• Why Use EVMS? It permits management to determine:– Where have we been?– Where are we now?– Where are we going?

Page 14: Delivering nothing efficiently

EVMS Framework

14

• The Inputs to the EVMS consist of:– Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)– Organisational Breakdown Structure (OBS)– Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB)– Baseline Cost Estimate– Baseline Schedule– Cost/Resource Control Plan– Change Control

Page 15: Delivering nothing efficiently

EVMS Framework

15

Earned Value Formulas:

• Planned value = BCWS = budgeted cost for work scheduled = what was planned to be done

• Earned value = BCWP = budgeted cost of work performed = what was done at budget rates

• Actual cost = ACWP = actual cost of work performed = what was paid for the work

• BAC = BCWScum. = budget at completion

= original budget plus changes

Page 16: Delivering nothing efficiently

EVMS Framework

The Variance Formulas:• CV = EV-AC = BCWP-ACWP = cost variance• SV = EV-PV = BCWP-BCWS = schedule variance• CV% = (EV-AC)/EV= (BCWP-ACWP)/BCWP= cost variance, %• SV% = (EV-PV)/PV = (BCWP-BCWS)/BCWS= schedule variance, %• VAC = BAC-EAC = variance at completion

16

Cost Variance (CV)If the result is POSITIVE “Under run”If the result is NEGATIVE “Over run”

Schedule Variance (SV)If the result is POSITIVE “On Schedule”If the result is NEGATIVE “Behind Schedule”

Cost Variance (CV%)Shows what percentage cost varies from what has been earned to date

Schedule Variance (SV%) Shows what percentage schedule varies from what has been planned to date

Cost Performance Index (CPI) = BCWP/ACWP If result is less than 1.0, cost is GREATER than budgetedIf the result greater than 1.0, cost is LESS than budgeted

Schedule Performance Index (SPI) = BCWP/BCWSIf result is less than 1.0, project is “BEHIND” scheduleIf the result greater than 1.0, project is “AHEAD of schedule

Page 17: Delivering nothing efficiently

EVMS/PMB Graphic

17

Page 18: Delivering nothing efficiently

WBS

WBS – Work Breakdown Structure• A WBS is a way of organising a project into groups of activities or

tasks that are inter-related to achieve a specified scope of work and objective.

• The WBS is used to develop the project baseline cost estimate and schedule, and to establish controls aligned to the objective.

• The WBS, like cost estimates and schedules are living, changing tools to reflect project scope changes as they occur.

• Pictorially, a WBS is drawn to look like a company organization chart but function in an entirely different way.

• The WBS Dictionaries (scope statements) are written descriptions of what is being delivered at WBS control account levels

• WBS supports BENCHMARKING & Consistency

18

Page 19: Delivering nothing efficiently

WBS - Example

19

Page 20: Delivering nothing efficiently

WBS - Example

20

Page 21: Delivering nothing efficiently

Cost Control

21

• The RAM shows the integration of the WBS and OBS against each task.

• This is the point where the Project Manager assigns Control Accounts for the Work Packages

OBS – Organisational Breakdown Structure• A similar hierarchal breakdown structure for the organisations responsible

for delivering the WBS

RAM – Responsibility Assignment MatrixWBS

OBS

Page 22: Delivering nothing efficiently

Baseline Cost & Schedule

22

• The process of developing a Schedule and Cost Baseline is interactive.

• The schedule affects the costs, and the costs affect the schedule.

• Risk and uncertainty also needs factored into both cost and schedule.

• Numerous cost estimating methodologies and applications.

• One integrated example is the International Structure for Decommissioning Costs (ISDC). ISDC uses a standard WBS format and content which ensures all aspects of a decommissioning project will be included. Same with PCWBS in UK.

• Accuracy/estimating uncertainty is very important in determining contingency/management reserve.

– The AACEI has established cost estimate classifications of accuracy based on the level of information available to the estimator, and the estimating methodology used (AACEI, “Cost Estimate Classification System,” Recommended Practice 18 R-97)

Page 23: Delivering nothing efficiently

PMB

23

• The PMB is the level where earned value is determined from the sum of Distributed (defined scope) and Undistributed (known but undefined scope) Budgets

• The Distributed Budget is the sum of all Control Accounts.

PMB – Performance Measurement Baseline

• Control accounts are key as they are used to establish the level at which to report the performance of the Work Packages

Page 24: Delivering nothing efficiently

Forecasting

24

EAC – ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION• The EAC is the actual cost to date plus an objective estimate of costs for

remaining authorised work.

• There are multiple ways and varying degrees of detail to calculate EAC.

• The following are the typical EAC formulas used, which will be described in the following slide:

– EAC = AC + ETC– EAC = (AC/EV) x (BAC)– EAC = BAC/CPI– EAC = AC + [(BAC-EV)/CPI]

BAC – BUDGET AT COMPLETION• The Budget at Completion (BAC) is the sum of all budgets allocated to a

project scope

• The Project BAC must always equal the Project Total PV.

Page 25: Delivering nothing efficiently

Change Control

25

• Triggers include:– Excessive Contingency Drawdown– Significant Variances– Adjustments - which are equitable across client and contractor– Scope or agreed strategy change– Technology decision points– Sanction/approval gates– Funding change

• The Project Manager, working with the Control Account Manager(s) and the Contractor would determine what changes were necessary to bring the project back under control.

• All Change Control of the major elements (WBS, OBS, RAM, Control Accounts, Work packages, etc need to be documented and approved.

• Poor performance is not a basis for change control.

Page 26: Delivering nothing efficiently

Performance Reporting

26

• Management of an EVMS program must include:– Integrated Baseline Reviews– Change Control– Transparent Contingency/Management Reserve drawdown – Monthly/Quarterly Reporting

• Integrated Baseline Reviews conducted within c. 6 months of contract signing, and repeated annually at a minimum

• The Owner and Contractor need to agree on control account levels and acceptable reporting formats (NEA - ISDC, UK - PSWBS etc)

• Other things to remember with EVMS:– EVMS should be senior management mandated - highest echelons of the

organisation need to understand and drive client behaviours– Contractor EVMS systems should be certified– Control account Managers and PMs should be suitably trained

Page 27: Delivering nothing efficiently

Uncertainty & Risk

27

• Baselines are Characterised by ‘base data’ with addition of three point estimating methodologies to determine more likely outcomes from impact of EU and discrete risk.

• Low probability high impact events need to be carefully considered.

• Part science / part art.• Risk/Issues are sometimes included as scope (as base BCWS).• Opportunities are sometimes included as scope (as base BCWS).• Uncertainty related costs can be allowed to creep into the cost

estimates (as base BCWS).• Overall ‘P50’ planning concept is however sound – eg NDA

Project Controls Procedure PCP09.

Page 28: Delivering nothing efficiently

Uncertainty & Risk - Waste

28

Decommissioning Waste Quantities&

Waste Retrieval & Disposal

Operational Waste Quantities

PMB Programme Drivers:•Need for more Cost Planning Certainty •(High) Legacy Hazard reduction (UK, US & France)•Local Stakeholder & Regulatory led•Need to maximise use of national assets – eg LLWR Drigg / L’Aube•Funding

Inventory Uncertainties

Packing Density UncertaintyWaste Acceptance UncertaintiesWaste Treatment OptionsWaste Container OptionsInterim Storage Options and UncertaintyFinal Disposal Options and UncertaintyOrphan Waste Streams?

Legacy Waste Characterisation Generates a set of Risks and Assumptions

Page 29: Delivering nothing efficiently

BDP/FDP/PMB (Baseline)

29

• Essential to have a plan, a baseline, a position of understanding– Scope– Schedule– Cost

• Uncertainty & Risk• Several benefits of having ‘decent’ cost estimates

– Liability Number– Financial Planning– Affordability– Work off curve– Measure delivery & efficiency (VfM)

• Operational throughputs c.f. Targets• Capital programme delivery through EVM

– Supports new investment• FDP planning• Benchmarking

• And then ….Let the market decide.

Page 30: Delivering nothing efficiently

UK National Liability

30

How did we get here? What happens next?

Escalation

Inflation versus

Work Done versus

Independent Challenge ona) Cost estimatingb) Contingencyc) Staffing/hotel costsd) Scopeversus

Impact of Competitions

Graph reproducedFrom NDA AnnualReport and Accounts

(Mo

ney

of

the

day

)

Add c. £10Bn for GDF life-cycle costs

2012 NAO report suggests Sellafield site alone is £67.5Bn.