1. Red Line Consulting
Concurrence driven Project Management
Ever wonder why those nice MS Project
digital Gantt charts don’t result in
projects that are on time and on budget?
The simple reason is the schedule
becomes disconnected from the team
members performing the tasks. The
answer is Concurrence driven project
management.
There are two basic types of scheduling.
Most people are very familiar with the MS
Project version of the Gantt chart (or time
line) that is created by a scheduler with
input from key leaders. This tool is very
useful for assessing when a project is no
longer on schedule. There is another
approach based on concurrence of all
parties.
One of the common reasons schedule
driven planning fails is the key
information holders are not leaders but
SMEs who are “overly technical” and
“difficult to engage” are not brought into
the planning. A key to successful projects
is being able to extract that critical “truth”
about the project path without having a 2-
hour discussion on the temporal effect of
obtuse widgets on acute widgets.
What is concurrence based PM?
Concurrence is focused on the agreement
of key stakeholders at all levels including
SME’s and their supporting team
members. There are two basic types 1)
risk mitigation (Office Andon) and 2)
schedule development.
The Office Andon system is a
democratizing and anonymous risk
mitigation system. Any person can flag a
task as yellow or red with or without
commenting. The managers then
investigate to resolve the concern to
ensure tasks are completed. Risks can
come from many areas including OTD,
FTY, budget, NPS, quality, and the
customer relationship. Complex
organizations and informal hierarchy
often work against information flow;
anonymity is a strategic tool in
information gathering.
Schedule development is based on
stakeholders agreeing to deliverables and
dates. Concurrence requires verified
interaction. One system gave each
stakeholder a password-encoded field to
accept, decline, or propose alternative
dates. A date was not verified until all
stakeholders had signed off. The issue of
dates being moved by the scheduler
without stakeholder concurrence was
addressed by turning all stakeholder
agreements to pending if the agreed date
changed. Concurrence based scheduling
was responsible for bringing the ITEP
engine test program back into compliance
with an agreed schedule within 5 days.
2015
Dr. T Scott
ConcurrencePM
Early risk identification
Forward Looking
Realistic completion
Collaborative
Accept, Reject, propose
dates
Non-RecurringCosts
Indicate failureto mutually
agree ondeliverables
RED LINE CONSULTING
3625 Michigan Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45208
PHONE
720-663-7303
WEB
www.redline.consulting
www.officeandon.com
Addresses need for
adequate controls

2. Why is it different?
Concurrence changes the discussion from backward
looking (why did this happen) to forward looking
(stopping the problem before it happens). The Gantt
system focus on when tasks should be completed and
flags when a date is missed while the concurrence system
works to uncover when tasks will realistically be
completed enabling leadership to make the adjustments
necessary to maintain the schedule before key dates are
missed. Furthermore, the people doing the work are now
personally invested in the deliverable dates (they
personally signed for them). Creating ownership helps to
develop a culture of responsibility and accountability.
What problem does it solve?
Well thought out schedules often become disconnected
from programs and projects as work progresses. Some
reasons for this include schedulers focusing on
management meetings; SME’s being too detailed in
discussions; and management fearing customers finding
out work is not progressing according to the original plan.
Often there are more incentives to show a disconnected
schedule than address issues and risks to the schedule.
Concurrence based scheduling forces stakeholders to buy-
in and creates visibility of schedule clashes and resource
limitations at the task level. It also contains the tools to
re-align tasks to ensure the critical path can be met.
Why should I use it?
The best reason to try something different is if what you
are doing now is not working very well. In aerospace non-
recurring cost is out of control and schedules are slipping
years. Some examples are BR725, 787, C-series, MRJ, and
LEAP. Here are some numbers the Spirit Aerosystems
PROSPECTUSSUPPLEMENT (To prospectus dated April 7,
2011) page S-6:
Included in 2011 cost of sales are forward-loss charges of
$81.8 million on the G280 wing program, net $29.0 million
on the Sikorsky CH-53K program, $18.3 million on the
B747-8 program and $3.0 million on the A350 XWB non-
recurring wing program. […] Also included in 2010 cost of
sales is a $2.8 million forward-loss on the G280 wing
program. Included in the 2009 cost of sales are forward-
loss charges of $93.0 million on the G280 wing program
and $10.9 million on the Cessna Citation Columbus
program. 1
Subsequently, investors sued Spirit:
[Spirit] Lacked adequate internal and financial controls,
especially relating to cost overruns for the Company’s 787
program, G650 Wing program, BR725 program, the G280
Wing program, and other programs. 2
Something is obviously missing from the meticulously
constructed schedules for these programs. In the case of
BR725, the Marlin Breer, the Spirit Technical Fellow for
icing, told the leadership the project would take 3 people
3 years but the budget and plan compressed the schedule;
reality caught up to the program in this and many other
areas.
Marlin’s case provides insight into the underlying issue,
the schedulers become disconnected from the teams
executing the work because they are taking to middle and
senior managers who are focused on the schedule. A
concurrence-based model continually aligns the project
timeline to the team capabilities. A digital system of
concurrence enables acceptance of dates or proposal of
alternative dates.
References:
1)http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364885/0
00104746914001906/a2218754z424b7.htm
2)http://www.faruqilaw.com/cases/show/id/1081
WEB
www.redline.consulting
www.officeandon.com
PHONE
720-663-7303
RED LINE CONSULTING
3625 Michigan Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Airplane development without cost overruns