With recent advancements in turnaround methodology, external scheduling assessments have become almost ubiquitous, which is a positive development if they are conducted correctly. The concern is a considerable number are being performed with no adherence to a standard approach or protocol. The true value is built around the competence of the assessor, the focus areas of his research, the depth of his examination and the remedial deliverables following the assessment.
Though a wide range of elements could be candidates for inclusion, some should be high priority, and only actionable items should be included. While some assessments are based on the 14-point system developed by the Defense Contractors Management Agency, others rely strictly on interviews with little or no firsthand research. Still others rely on extremely narrowly focused data such as logic sequence and a short list of sitespecific scheduling do’s and don’ts. All too often, turnaround groups desire little more than getting the box checked and moving to the next gate in the funding process. Other groups are seeking real answers and spending large sums of money for assessments, only to be left with poorly researched data, vague analyses and no real clear path forward.
A true scheduling assessment must answer not only the “what” but also the “why.” At least the following should be included:
• Front-end loading (FEL) schedule — Is there a resource-loaded FEL schedule? Is it being managed by a competent scheduler? Is it regularly published? Were long-lead items purchased on time? Are the long-lead items expected to be delivered on schedule? Is the FEL schedule logic tied to the execution schedule and allowed to push out or drive negative the turnaround start date?
• Shutdown/start-up schedule quality — Is it resource loaded? Is it incremented to be measurable at the end of each shift? Does it have clearly identifiable hold points such as time-scaled pressures, temperatures, levels and product qualities?
• Software user preferences, project settings and scheduling options — Are the settings in compliance with site requirements?
Is it clear how the different settings may affect the outcome of the schedule?
• Work scope clarification — Beyond the proper identification and freezing of the work scope, careful examination should be made regarding the level of clarity around the work items.
• Relationship of planning to schedule — When the schedule is compared to the plans, are there variations in the number of jobs, the description of the work, resources assigned to the work and durations assigned to the activities? Has the completed schedule been endorsed by the associated planners?
• Critical path optimization — Has the critical path been correctly identified? Has it been duly challenged and shortened as much as is feasible? Does it include shutdown and start-up timelines? Has the duration of the turnaround critical been locked down with start and finish milestones?
• Logic integrity — Does the schedule have more than two open ends? Are all logic relationships needed? Does the logic sequence make sense? Is work paralleled to take advantage of multiple crews working simultaneously?
• Schedule coding structure — Does the schedule conform to the coding convention specified at the site? Are all activities fully coded to support site reporting expectations?
• Best practices check — Does the schedule conform to best practices? For instance, are there relationship lags in places where a task-dependent or resource-dependent activity should be used? Are inappropriate constraints being utilized?
• Calendar management — Is there a sufficient number of calendars to represent the various execution strategies being planned? Are shift times, holidays, fatigue days and logistics delays accounted for? Are limited resources being assigned to a resource calendar?
• Resource management — Is the schedule managing resources effectively? Is there a well substantiated plan for ramping up and down crew levels? Was a density study conducted to determine the personnel saturation point for the various work areas?
The crescendo of the assessment should be the list of clear recommendations for improvement.
For more information, contact Mike Bischoff or Ray Smith at (281) 461- 9340, email sales@tamanagement.com or visit www.tamanagement.com.