W4_Juhaina_Estimation of Duration to Tender Site Studies Contracts Using PERT

1-      Problem identification:
As part of the Request for Proposals Package (RFP) related to power and water projects, it is an essential requirement to include site studies related to the allocated site in order to provide the bidders with enough level of information on the site, and therefore reduce the site risks and related costs. OPWP usually hires third party contractors to perform these studies prior to releasing the RFP through a competitive tender process.

As is it is essential to issue the RFP as schedules, it is important to understand the most expected duration it takes to tender and hire a contractor to perform the site studies. This blog aims to estimate the most expected duration.

2-      Feasible Alternatives
The current project schedules allow for a standard 90 day period to hire a contractor, however the PERT analysis (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) can be used to identify the most suitable period which is the most common method used in three-point estimation technique.

3-      Development of the outcome of the alternatives
Using the PERT analysis on the historical data, we can provide the alternatives of the duration as per the following:
1.    Best Case
2.    Worst Case
3.    Most Likely

4-      Selection criteria
The selection criteria will be based on a 95% comfort level to achieve the process within the duration estimated.

5-      Analysis and Comparison of the alternatives
The historical data of the tender duration for the most recent 10 projects has been collected and presented in the following table:

#
Project
Tender Duration (days)
1
Barka IWP
72
2
Sohar IWP
89
3
Salalah IWP
75
4
Sharqiyah IWP
75
5
Khasab IWP
71
6
Duqm IWP
71
7
Sohar IPP
93
8
Ibri IPP
105
9
Salalah 2 IPP
84
10
Mussandam IPP
159


Using the statistical Process Control, we first eliminate any outliers from the data using -/+ 3 sigma. The average is 89.4 days (by calculating the sum of total days by 10). Sigma here is calculated as (highest number of days – lowest number of days)/6 and the result is 14.66. Therefore the following is calculated:
-       Upper Control Limit is 89.4 + 14.66 = 104.06
-       Lower Limit is 89.4 – 14.66 = 74.74
The data is accordingly modified and only the following data set is considered:

#
Project
Tender Duration (days)
2
Sohar IWP
89
3
Salalah IWP
75
4
Sharqiyah IWP
75
7
Sohar IPP
93
9
Salalah 2 IPP
84

According to the data above, the following table provides the most probable scenarios:

Most Optimistic (O)
Most Likely (M)
Most Pessimistic (P)
75
83.2
93

Using the Pert Formula below, we can calculate the weighted average:
(O + 4M + P)/6
= (75 + (4*83.2) + 93)/6
= 83.5 days
-       Mean Duration = 83.5 days
-       Standard Deviation = (P – O)/6 = (93 – 75)/6 = 18/6 = 3
-       Variance = (3)2 = 9 days variance

Using the Z table, the P95 is calculated as follows:
-       P95 = Mean + (Standard Deviation * 1.65) = 83.5 + (3*1.65) = 88.45 days

6-      Selection of the preferred alternative
From the pert analysis demonstrated above, it is shown that for a 95% comfort level, the tenders are expected to be achieved within 88.45 days. This is very close to the standard set in the schedules and this show that our standard is based on a good estimation. It is recommended to adjust the timeframe to be 88.45 days accordingly.

7-      Performance monitoring and the post evaluation results
In order to further verify the above, it is suggested to look into the different activities within the process and identify the critical path and possibly replan the schedule to make it more time efficient.

8-      References
1-        Use PERT Technique for More Accurate Estimates, by Tom Mochal, June 25, 2007 (visited on 30 November 2017)
2-      What is a PERT Chart? By Eileen O’Loughlin (Visited on 30 November 2017)
3-      PERT Estimation Technique, (Visited on 30 November 2017)

Comments

  1. AWESOME case study BUT....... how SUCCESSFUL were these projects in terms of TIME or COST? In other words IF these projects were NOT "successful" then is this a valid basis to do your analysis?

    Just a suggestion but why not find projects that were SUCCESSFUL and use only that data, but first normalize it based on some parameter like duration per KWH or duration per MLiters of water?

    My concern is if you don't first validate your INPUT data then you run the risk of "Garbage In/Garbage Out" effect.

    I would urge you to do another posting but this time look at the relative "success" or "failure" of the project, the theory being that there is a correlation between how long you allow and how "successful" the project is? Maybe the answer is no but I would sure recommend you at least explore that avenue just to see?

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Jakarta

    ReplyDelete
  2. Usually I never comment on blogs but your article is so convincingthat I never stop myself to say something about it.
    best telemedicine platforms

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W1_Thuraiya_Leadership Styles analysis Using Tuckman model

W1_MA_Tuckman Analysis Assignment