Reducing project duration and cost on an IM&M project

Large project implementations are not business-as-usual for most clients…[who] are staffed and organized for the day-to-day operation, administration, and maintenance of their systems. Project managers need to be ready to assist their clients with detailed planning and resource allocation in order to meet the unique needs of a large implementation.

INTRODUCTION

The University of South Florida (USF), founded in 1956 as a public coeducational institution, is part of the State of Florida University System. USF offers programs in Liberal and Fine Arts, Business, Engineering, Health Science, and Teacher Preparation. The 1,695-acre campus is in a suburban neighborhood ten miles northeast of Tampa, Florida. Including residence halls, there is a total of 167 buildings on campus.

USF accommodates approximately 25,000 students (3,300 housed on campus) and a faculty of 1,800. Special facilities include an art gallery, planetarium, a 14,000-seat outdoor stadium, and a radio and television station. Linked to the main campus are four upper division campuses located at Fort Myers, Sarasota, St. Petersburg, and Lakeland.

In the spring of 1990, the USF Department of Telecommunications recognized a need for a state-of-the-art telecommunication switching system at their Tampa campus. Their existing central office based switching system was expensive and did not offer the rich feature functionality of today's on-premise voice and data switching systems. The aging telephones and cable plant were beginning to break down, causing service interruptions and increased maintenance costs.

BACKGROUND

The university contracted JTM Associates, telecommunications consultants in Atlanta, Georgia, to assist the relatively small USF Department of Telecommunications in reviewing the formalized Request For Proposal (RFP) that was developed by USF staff procurement personnel. USF also brought in a contract administrator who assisted in the development of the RFP and who would eventually administer the resulting contracts. JTM Associates conducted a comprehensive needs assessment and together with the USF Department of Telecommunications team developed a revised implementation proposal.

After identification of qualified bidders and approval by the State of Florida University System Board of Regents, the RFP was officially put out to the selected bidders. On September 19, 1991, a master agreement between USF and AT&T was approved by the Board of Regents at their meeting in Fort Myers. The Chancellor signed the agreement, it was subsequently countersigned by AT&T, and on October 14, 1991, the first purchase order was placed.

The agreed-upon project schedule called for engineering and design to begin on October 15, 1991, with the construction to begin on March 2, 1992. The preliminary project schedule estimate projections showed construction and equipment installation to be completed and fully operational on April 23, 1993, a 14-month implementation cycle.

It was identified at early project meetings that there were substantial benefits to be gained for both USF and AT&T if the project implementation cycle could be shortened. USF and AT&T agreed to explore the possibility of attempting a project schedule crash to cutover the system on November 28, 1992, during the Thanksgiving Day holiday. This attempt to shorten the implementation cycle represented a five-month, or 35 percent, schedule compression, an undertaking that would certainly come with some difficulties.

This article discusses the methods that the project team used to crash the preliminary schedule as well as techniques that were applied to overcome many obstacles created by the crash.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The goal of the project was to change out a central office based telecommunications system with an on-campus PBX system and provide wiring for future communication and data needs.

The University of South Florida's configuration required the installation of a DEFINITY G3r PBX with remote modules in three other locations on the campus. There were two Voice Mail AUDIX systems located with the main G3r; one system for Administration and one for students. Trouble Tracker, Call Management System, Switch Management System, ISDN, 32-port teleconferencing, and paging were also installed for the university.

The major segment of the project was in constructing the infrastructure, which included the construction of 43 new cable manholes and duct runs to all the existing buildings. New outside cable had to be run to every building along with providing a ring of fiber within the campus. Most of the buildings were rewired within the buildings with two four-pair wires to handle the voice and data requirements of USF.

AT&T had a team of 18 persons assigned to this project, supported by six primary subcontractors. These team members and their responsibilities are shown in the sidebar.

CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Though the majority of the activities on the project were the responsibility of AT&T and their subcontractors, USF had many project- and non-project-related activities that would vie for their resources. Some of the responsibilities were contracted out, such as construction of the four equipment rooms that would house the switch nodes and main distributing frames, and building construction to accommodate department moves, including the move of the Department of Telecommunication to anew office locations. The contracted work still required the Department of Telecommunication resources to prepare RFPs, evaluate bids, obtain state approval, administer contracts, conduct compliance inspections, and give final acceptance.

The activities directly related to the Telecommunications Improvement Project that were interlinked with the AT&T tasks were such things as locating USF underground facilities, coordination of other vender underground facility location, periodic compliance and quality inspections, approval of route selection for conduit placement and changes to the routes as deviations occurred. Communication and coordination of the construction events with the university population was another of the department's responsibilities.

USF and their telecommunication consultants, JTM Associates, were to implement a new computer-based cable pair, equipment line location assignment system to coincide with the switch installation. The new assignment system would provide a short jumper concept for mainframe wiring. This entailed the creation and management of a new data base, which required collection and manipulation of data from the cable installation contractors and the AT&T factory building the switch.

As the new distribution system was being completed, USF was able to move data service from their overloaded data network to the new fiber-optic data LAN. Coincidentally, the Department of Telecommunications had to maintain the day-to-day business of new installation, move, change, rearrange, and maintain the existing telephone and data systems. The project also required the issuance of purchase orders for the timely procurement of hardware and software.

A plan was developed to approve and accept the project in manageable lots to lessen the impact on the university acceptance managers and to shorten the time frames. The university also needed to use a considerable amount of the plant as it was installed, which necessitated a good acceptance plan.

With a fairly lean staff-three managers, four supervisors, two engineers, six technicians, and two clerical support—and all of the activities with which the Department of Telecommunication was involved, any compression of the schedule would have a large impact on their resources. It would take very detailed planning and close management to redistribute the work to their existing staff and identify the proper additional help required to manage the added complexity that a schedule compression would create.

UNIDENTIFIED SCOPE/DYNAMIC DESIGN

There were several areas of the project where the scope of work had not been fully defined. Those areas were dependent on engineering activities or some further investigation. For the project team to fully understand the effects of a schedule crash, the scope of work had to be fully defined as soon as possible. The team developed plans to identify, define, and incorporate all of the unidentified work into the project plans.

As the construction of the conduit and manhole system began, it became evident that there would be adjustments in the routes selected. Trenching revealed that the drawings showing the location of the underground plant were not always complete nor correct. A system was developed whereby when the trenching crew uncovered the need to change routes the change could be investigated and approved on the job site. USF assigned compliance inspectors, who would be on the job site and have access to all of the relevant drawings and location information. As a change was deemed necessary it could be evaluated and approved on site without significant construction delays.

The university did not have an accurate count of the number of telephone and data wire runs located in each building. The records had not been maintained due to the high level of movement of phones and data lines around the campus. Again a process was initiated to allow change approval without delay when a difference in the run count was identified. By project end the wire crews had installed several hundred more wire runs than originally contracted.

USF and their consultant was implementing an assignment and mainframe layout combination that would provide for a short Main Distribution Frame (MDF) jumper concept. The short jumper concept would mean that a technician could place a jumper and the run would be in the same vertical of the MDF, no more than a few feet long. This would provide significant labor savings to place new, trace old, or make repairs over the period of the equipment life cycle.

The frame layout and the data base creation were dependent on two pieces of information: the equipment line location in the switch and the cable pair location on the MDF. To determine where to place the cable terminations on the frame, the equipment line location and its position on the frame had to be known. The assignment of equipment line location and its location within the switch was a function of the factory, based on load balancing algorithms. Unfortunately, the manufacture of the switch was late in the project implementation cycle and the load balancing assignments could not be accomplished early. This put a critical path through switch manufacture, data base creation, cable frame placement, Equipment Line Location (ELL) frame placement, and jumper placement.

Since these areas of the project contained a large portion of the project risk, the project team would spend a good deal of time planning, re-planning, monitoring, and re-evaluating these activities.

PLANNING/SCHEDULING

The strategy employed in the attempt to significantly reduce the project duration was to implement detailed planning utilizing traditional project management techniques. The project management team would lead the planning effort using Work Breakdown Structures (WBS), network diagramming (CPM or PERT), and efficient resource allocation methods. With a detailed plan and network diagram in place, the team would then see where activities could be fast-tracked, the critical path crashed, and resources added or reassigned. An AT&T cost schedule engineer was assigned to the project to concentrate on the planning, scheduling, and budgeting aspects of the project.

One of the largest challenges to the team was the new methods to which they were being introduced. The project manager had to build a trust level with everyone to facilitate an accurate schedule with all work tasks identified. This task took time to accomplish but as the team realized that the schedule was a tool to help them, not a device to manipulate them, the buy-in was enthusiastic.

The first task for the project management team was to develop a high-level WBS with the entire team. This WBS would include all the major project elements, milestones, deliverables, interfaces, and items that would be reported at the project team and executive level meetings. The project detail would be contained in grouped projects and be linked to and drive the dates in this master schedule.

The next step in the planning process was to develop the detailed WBSs and networks for each project element. This is where all of the work packages and activity detail would reside. These schedules would be managed and controlled out of the project management office and serve as the vehicle to make the management and schedule decisions that would drive the project. This detailed planning would turnout to be a time consuming challenge for the project management team. Most of the project entities, contractor, and subcontractors were not familiar with work breakdown structures, network diagrams, or detailed planning in general.

The approach to working with the task groups to develop the WBSs and create the network diagrams was a process used within AT&T called “Mini Netting.” The Mini Net process is to meet with the person or persons responsible for the work packages and collect data. The project manager, in this case the cost schedule engineer, would meet with appropriate responsible and ask:

1. what work activities do you need to do? (Activities)
2. In what order are you going to do them ? (Logic)
3. How long will each activity take? (Duration)
4. What do you need from others to do the task? (Inputs)
5. What do you hand off and to whom? (outputs)

The facilitator of the session would then hand-draw the process on “blue line” in network diagram fashion. The process was then reviewed and discussed, using brainstorming techniques, to ensure that all work, inputs, and outputs had been captured. With this process, diagramed alternatives and options would be discussed, analyzed and incorporated into the Mini Net.

The Mini Net could now be input into the project management scheduling tool, in our case Project Scheduler 5. The output from the software can be taken back to the responsible and reviewed for logic, resource allocation, inputs, and outputs. The necessary changes would be made and the project manager would then evaluate the output with the team.

The individual networks are then grouped into the master project network and interlinked to the other grouped projects. The linkages are tied to the master schedule project in the same manner to drive its dates. Fast-tracking, critical path crashing, and resource allocation analysis can now be conducted in the project office, in team meetings, and one on one with the contractors and managers.

The resulting USF project network was structured through Mini Nets as follows:

• USF Master Project Network
• Master Schedule
• Outside Plant Substructure
• Cable and Fiber Placement
• Splicing
• Building Wire
• As-Built Drawings and Acceptance
• Switch
• System Manager
• Call Management System
• Trouble Tracker System
• System Cutover

The outside plant substructure, cable and fiber placement, and splicing networks represented 12 months of the preliminary 14-month project schedule. After three months of applying these scheduling techniques the project team was able to develop a project plan to deliver these elements in eight months. With no major setbacks or surprises it looked like the project duration could be reduced by the targeted four months.

COSTs

For USF and AT&T, reduced cost was the main incentive for reducing the project duration. USF could save a substantial amount by eliminating the monthly charges from the regional operating company for the Centrex service, line charges, off-premise charges, and so forth. A secondary consideration was relieving the burden on their overloaded data network and delivering the new technology to their end users.

A short implementation cycle would allow AT&T to save cost on such things as per diem, office rental, management time, and travel expenses for project team members. If the project could in fact be completed on the targeted Thanksgiving weekend date, AT&T could bill and receive payment on the dollars expended in 1992. Receiving payment against those expenditures would greatly impact the local sales branch, the region, and the Global Business Communication Systems business unit's financial objectives for 1992.

As the detailed planning got under way, it became apparent to the project contractors that a compressed implementation cycle would gain them the same cost reduction benefits.

The different budget scenarios all showed that crashing and fast-tracking would cost more in such areas as overtime, management time, and additional resources. However, crash costs were far outweighed by the cost reductions that were the result of reduced equipment rental time, trailer and yard expenses, per diem, and travel expenses. Another cost benefit was a result of the detailed planning. With a good plan in place, materials could be procured and delivered in a “just in time” fashion. In many cases the materials could be delivered directly to the job sites, saving project labor expenses. The procurement team was able to negotiate better pricing by spacing the purchases and deliveries.

For all of the project entities, an early implementation would allow the project resources to be released to other revenue-producing projects or to apply the new technologies for the USF end users. The project was a financial success due to the shortened schedule and everyone working as a team.

COMMUNICATION

As on all projects, communication among the USF project team members was a critical element to the success of the project. With the amount of fast-tracking of tasks taking place, the interdependencies of the tasks were rising dramatically. The team members had to understand how their task effected the downstream tasks, and what was going on upstream. Changes to the plans had to be communicated quickly and clearly so that everyone could understand the ramifications and make the appropriate changes promptly.

The project team set up a multi-tiered communication plan early in the project. Electronic mail served as the backbone of the communication system. All team members were on the ATTMail network that would serve as the main method of notification and documentation throughout the project. Project meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, as well as jeopardy reports and escalations were distributed via ATTMail. The formalized change control plan utilized electronic mail to process and communicate all requested changes in scope.

Several layers of both formal and informal meetings were established. The formal meetings, with agreed-upon frequency and format, included contractor meetings, internal AT&T meetings, project team review meetings, and client project review meetings. Informal sessions, or what we refereed to as “eyeball to eyeball” meetings, were conducted as needed to review status, changes, problems, or to discuss options and alternatives. The network planning (Mini Net) meetings and quality compliance meetings were also informal and were held in the construction trailers on the job site.

With the intent to keep the formal meetings focused on forward-looking planning, task status information was gathered at the informal job site or contractors meetings. The status was input into the project management software and reports prepared for the internal AT&T and project team review meetings.

Based on current status and changes in the actual versus planned, the project plans could be adjusted at the project team review meeting. The output of this meeting would then be updated into the software and a master schedule Gantt chart and job column report would be prepared for the client project review meeting. The job column report and Gantt chart would then be reviewed and changes to the project plans presented and if necessary adjusted once again. Finally the project status and the updated project plans would be published and distributed in the meeting minutes. This was the weekly process throughout the implementation cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

In future years the ability to deliver telecommunications projects with ever-shortening implementation cycles will be a necessity to maintain a competitive edge. On-premise telecommunication providers, their contractors and subcontractors must become competent at detailed planning, plan integration, and alternative plan cost evaluation.

The project managers of these organizations must be prepared to deal with contractors and team members that are not familiar with project management philosophies, tools or techniques. Contractors in the industry must be willing to work in the team environment and make incremental handoffs of their deliverables.

Project managers must realize that large project implementations are not business-as-usual for most clients. For the most part, the telecommunication departments are staffed and organized for the day-to-day operation, administration, and maintenance of their systems. Project managers need to be ready to assist their clients with detailed planning and resource allocation in order to meet the unique needs of a large implementation.

The procedures used in this project worked well due to the excellent teamwork and close supervision of the project plans by the whole team. The professionalism of the managers, led by Pete Philbrick, and the subcontractor, Michigan Trenching, set the standards with their terrific effort and quality work. We had four dedicated AT&T system technicians who were willing to go the extra mile to achieve superb cutover results. Of course none of this could have been achieved without the cooperation and expertise of George Ellis, USF director of telecommunications, and his entire staff.

Steve C. Erlenheim has been involved in the implementation of telecommunication systems for his entire 27 year career with AT&T. He has been a project manager in AT&T's Global Business Communications Systems (GBCS) business unit for the past seven years. During the past five years Steve has managed six major AT&T projects valued at over $22 million.

He is a member of PMI, is a PMI certified Project Management Professional, and is actively involved in the Northern California PMI Chapter