W2_AlShehhi_Boat Project

1. Problem Definition.

One of many small/medium projects my company carrying out, in order to prepare to the operation phase of the gas plant, is a “boat project”, for which a boat to be facilitated in order to use it in maintenance activities of the single point mooring (SPM).

More than one option has  been considered and each has its own cost, health & safety, operability and social impact. Which one would be a better option?

2. Identify the Feasible Alternative.

The following are the two alternatives;

  1. Outsource the project to SME entrepreneur
  2. In-house the project

Multi attribute decision making with compensatory models will be used.

 3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

Qualitative comparative analysis of the alternatives will examine their potential impact on the previously mentioned attributes.

Below is the comparison for alternatives:

Parameter

Outsourced

In-housed

Operability Risk

If out sourced, SME could be using on irrelevant activities, and that will impose high operability risk. The boat will also be parked 25 km away from the SPM, which a source of delay in case of an emergency.

Boat parked 3 km away from SPM which implies far less operability risk.

Health & Safety

Improperly trained boat operators leading to higher likelihood of incidents occurrence.

Properly trained boat operators leading to lower probability of incidents occurrence.

Social

Very good social impact since project will out bided to the local community

Relatively more negative social impact.

Cost

– Fixed monthly payment to contractor           – Fuel cost

– Boat capital cost                                                                   – Operating Cost (fuel, regular maintenance, operator salary, operator benefits like training health insurance and social insurance.                                                                                 – Man hours cost (considered long lead item)

Table1: Alternatives and correspondent attributes

Parameter

Outsourced

In-housed

Operability Risk

1

3

Health & Safety

2

3

Social

3

1

Cost

3

2

Note: Score (1 to 3), where 1 is most difficult, risky, expensive and 5 least difficult, risky or expensive.

 

 

Table2: Weight estimate of each attribute relative to the option

After setting the alternatives, attributes and relative weight, Table 1&2 above, dimensionless value is calculated and presented in Table 3.

Attribute

 

Outsourced

Inhoused

Operability Risk

Value

1.0

3.0

Dimensionless value

1.0

0.0

Health & Safety

Value

2.0

3.0

Dimensionless value

0.5

0.0

Social

Value

3.0

1.0

Dimensionless value

0.0

1.0

Cost

Value

3.0

2.0

Dimensionless value

0.0

0.5

T able3: Dimensionless value correspondent to each alternative and its attributes

Table 4 below shows weights of attribute. These will be used in section 5.

Attribute

Ranking

Weight

Operability Risk

1.0

0.1

Health & Safety

3.0

0.3

Social

4.0

0.4

Cost

2.0

0.2

Total

10.0

1.0

 4. Selection of the Acceptable Criteria.

Highest dimensionless value is the selection criteria.

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.

Attribute

Weight

Outsourced

Inhoused

Dim Value

Weigh Value

Dim Value

Weight Value

Operability Risk

0.1

1.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

Health & Safety

0.3

0.5

0.2

0.0

0.0

Social

0.4

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.4

Cost

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.1

Total

1

 

0.25

 

0.5

Table5 above shows comparison and analysis of the two alternatives.

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

It is obvious that the “boat project” to be done in-house.

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

After this initial result, a more detailed cost estimate can be done, like NPV, in order to make sure it is the better option.

8. References:

  1. Making Decisions with Multiple Attributes: A case in sustainability Planning, Retrieved June 9, 2014, from http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2012/08/making-decisions-with-multiple-attributes-a-case-in-sustainability-planning/

 

  1. A Set of Tools for Multi-Attribute Decision Making, Retrived on June 9, 2014, from http://www.students.iitmandi.ac.in/~deepak_sharma/maked/tutorial.html

 

  1. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., &Koelling, C. P.(2012). Engineering economy 15th Edition. Chapter 14 – Decision Making Considering Multiattributes., pp.551-569.

 

Advertisements

W1_AlShehhi_Tuckman Assessment

1. Problem Definition.
A PMI competency development course commenced at Muscat on May 2015, with 25 participants from Oman. The course is broadly divided into face to face sessions as well as 12-week distance learning mode.
This first blog post is about using Bruce Tuckman “Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing” module, to which adjourning phase was added years later, to decide the leadership style appropriate for the team, since about 50% of the course consists of team based assignments.
2. Identify the Feasible Alternative.
In his article “Development Sequence in Small Groups”, published in 1965, Dr. Bruce described the path that most teams follow on their way to high performance. The model consists of four stages. These are Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing.
Team Forming Stage Leadership Style
Forming * Leader to play a dominant role because members don’t have clear roles and responsibilities * Detached task-directing
Storming * Managerially-involved stages of explanation
Norming * Participation
Performing * Delegation of authority and focus on developing team members
Table 1: Tuckman’s phases and leadership styles
Leadership style of strategies of each one these stages are illustrated in Table1 above.
3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative
The team members assessed themselves, in terms of what stage or phase of Tuckman’s module they think they are, by answering 32 questions developed by Donald Clark. Survey results processed via PERT analysis and results are shown in Table2.
Forming Storming Norming Performing
Min 8 8 10 22
Average 21 20 23 28
Max 33 29 30 35
Mean 21 19 22 28
Sigma 4 4 3 2
Variance 17 12 11 5
P(95) (z=1.65) 28 25 27 31
Table 2: Team survey analysis using PERT
4. Selection of the Acceptable Criteria.
A confidently level of 95% was selected as it is vital for team leaders to identify exactly what sort of management style they should implement and spot any flaws in the team’s performance sooner rather than later.
5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.
As it is clear from the table above team is 95% in performing stage and merely a probability of 5% that it is in any other stage/phase. Despite the short period of five days, the team could pass through most difficult part, storming, relatively quickly. This could be attributed to the fact that al team members come from the same country and have common background which formed concrete firm basis of a good performing team.
6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.
As it is clear from Table 2, team leaders should delegate authority and focus on developing team members as a preferred alternative.
7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.
Although team is in performance stage, it requires continuous monitoring and periodic evaluation of its performance. It is suggested team performance to be evaluated every three weeks.
8. References:
1. Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing: Understanding the Stages of Team Formation. (n.d.). Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm

2. Stages of Group Development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning, Retrived on June 8, 2014, from http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/stages-of-group-development-forming-storming-forming-performing-adjourning.html#lesson

3. Tuckman Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing Model, Retrieved June 8, 2014, from http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm

W1_AlShehhi_Tuckman Assessment

1. Problem Definition.

A PMI competency development course commenced at Muscat on May 2015 with 25 participants from Oman. The course is broadly divided into face to face sessions as well as 12-week distance learning mode.

This first blog post is about using Bruce Tuckman “Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing” module, to which adjourning phase was added years later, to decide the leadership style appropriate the team is in, since about 50% of the course consists of team based assignments.

2. Identify the Feasible Alternative.

In his article “Development Sequence in Small Groups”, published in 1965, Dr. Bruce described the path that most teams follow on their way to high performance [1]. The model consists of four stages. These are Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing.

Team Forming Stage

Leadership Style

Forming

 * Leader to play a dominant role because members don’t have clear roles and responsibilities                                                                                                                         * Detached task-directing

Storming

* Managerially-involved stages of explanation

Norming

* Participation

Performing

* Delegation of authority and focus on developing team members                              

Table 1:  Tuckman’s phases and leadership styles

Leadership style of strategies of each one these stages are illustrated in Table1 above.

3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

The team members assessed themselves, in terms of what stage or phase of Tuckman’s module they think they are, by answering 32 questions developed by Donald Clark[3]. Survey results processes via PERT analysis and results are shown in Table2.

 

Forming

Storming

Norming

Performing

Min

8

8

10

22

Average

21

20

23

28

Max

33

29

30

35

Mean

21

19

22

28

Sigma

4

4

3

2

Variance

17

12

11

5

P(95)                   (z=1.65)

28

25

27

31

Table 2: Team survey analysis using PERT

4. Selection of the Acceptable Criteria.

A confidently level of 95% selected as it is vital for team leaders to identify exactly what sort of management style they should implement and spot any flows in the team’s performance sooner rather than later.

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.

As it is clear from the table above team is 95% in performing stage and merely a probability of  5% that it is in any other stage/phase. Despite the short period of five days, the team could pass through most difficult part, storming, relatively quickly. This could be attributed to the fact that al team members come from the same country and have common background which formed concrete firm basis of a good performing team.

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

As it is clear from Table 2, team leaders should delegate authority and focus on developing team members as a preferred alternative.

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

Although team is in performance stage, it requires continuous monitoring and periodic evaluation of its performance. It is suggested team performance to be evaluated every three weeks.

8. References:

  1. Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing: Understanding the Stages of Team Formation. (n.d.). Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm
  2. Stages of Group Development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning, Retrived on June 8, 2014, from http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/stages-of-group-development-forming-storming-forming-performing-adjourning.html#lesson
  3. Tuckman Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing Model, Retrieved June 8, 2014, from http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm