ICE Integrated Concurrent Engineering

Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Integrated Concurrent Engineering
Organization
Genentech PM
Ken Mouchka
SRG Management AEI Management
MEP, Teledata room design KPFF
Task 28 H Block Crew SRG Tele Data

Task 27 SRG / AEI AEI Core and SRG AEI Core Code Rev Code Rev
SRG Lab Plan SRG Lab Task 37 Furniture Task 44 Project Mgt Task4 AEI Core Task 38 Task 41 Task26 H Block Crew Task 23 Task22 HDCCO Costing KPFF HDCCO Core Solvent Tarter & Tech Landscape Design
Technical SRG Lab Technical and Tech Consultant
Task 29
Meetings
Weekly
Lab Planning Program meeting with Bio Genentech 80% Detailed Design
Lab Planning Program Coordination
Organic Review 80% Drawing Review
Meetings with Directors Meeting
Final Program Review skin changes w/db team Final Program

BMS Controls Meetings
Confirmation with Officing confirmation with LAR
(Weekly)
Lab Planning Program Review 80%

Meetings with Lab planning Program Meeting with Protein Final Program Steel Detailing Tele Data Coordination Meetings
documents
Pharmacology Chemistry Confirmation with Meetings
Pharmacology
Work Process
*Exterior
Programming
Accepted by Genentech
*Cal OSHA Recommend

Determination of LFFH
23. *Reprogram 24. *Complete B13,4 H
B#13 and B#15 block occupancy
Exterior Architecture requirements on MEP
systems (6) Coord B13 MEP
floor section
26. *Finalize B#13 and
B#15
Bookend
Exiting/architecural H
Programming
occupancy concept (8) *Revise (13,15,16) MEP specs, P&ID's,
Accepted by Genentech MEP
MEP loads, control sequences
Equipment
41. *Reprogram
schedules
bookends B#13 and
finalized
B#15 Notice to proceed on
structural changes *Package B structural
modifications (CCD3A)
36. *Analyze
structural impacts 22. *Complete catwalk drawings
29. *Document
35. *Finalize lab plan
Protein Chemistry
Program 4. complete all Interior Architcture 20. *Determine Scope of
18. *Detailed Lab package D including vivarium
Program changes
Documentation
32. *Finalize
Bio-Organic
Chemistry
G accept lab 15. Jeff reprogram HMIS
Program 5. *Finalize lab & Equipment
equipment matrix
47. *Develop lab plans
33. *Finalize *Lab and
DD plan
LAR Program vivarium
Programming *Turnover lab and
Complete vivarium DD plan
to AEI
28. *Determine Package D and UG
34. *Finalize 49. Develop Turnover
segregation of lab addendum issued:
Pharmacology reflected ceiling reflected
and tech space Architect 16. *HDCCO Determine underground utilities,
Program plan ceiling plan to
program/MEP Schedule Impact vivarium catwalk
AEI
oncepts
44. *Complete Established
B#14 Officing 48. *Develop exiting By Design
Planning plan Team *Notice to proceed
*Package C
*05-07-01 with detailed design *Accept project
skin
39. *Finalize MEP 14. *HDCCO update Estimate of cost scope:budget MEP 80% Review (21-4) Finalize MEP Details,
modifications
distribution and by Genentech (20) Incorporate comments update specs and p&ID's
of Program
section 1. *Redesign main MEP 80% MEP review incorporated
distribution systems comments
2. Initial redesign MEP branch
lateral distribution
Issue 80%
27. *Finalize B#13,
25. *Do Central Plant MEP CDs
15 Shaft Size &
MEP Room design changes
17. *Risick
Locations reprogram solvent 13. *Code Consultants *City Approval of 10. Draft Alternate means City Approval of
distribution and waste 21. *Prepare Plan Views for Review Concept for final H Concept
Review of Concept w/City Alternate Means
31.* AEI & city Presentation Finish
30. *Approve for Program Detailed Design 80 PC
42. *Develop SRG
Change to Complete
Execution Determine
Design
Strategy Design $/Time 8. Review Alternate (19) Genentech review
Contract *Design Budget &
Impact of Means w/impact on LEL 80% drawings
Schedule for Changes and LFFH
Approved 53. Incorporate
comments, complete
46. *RA Furnture 52. Finalize landscape Architectural detail
Concept Complete
3. Complete Tele Data Design *City Accept

43. *Changes in Steel
Forwarded to Steel exiting
Detailers
50. Designate size, location of G accept

40. *SRG 13 MEP, teledata rooms 13/14
Reprogram 15/14
Interface
interface, exiting,
stairs
51. Designate size, location
of 14 MEP, teledata rooms G accept
15/14
55. KPFF design
Interface
stairs for 15/14
B13 MEP HVAC,
54. KPFF design conduit, piping mains
stairs for 13/14 completed
38. *SRG
Reprogram 13/14
interface, exiting,
stairs
37.
*Reprogram
B#15 Shafts
19. *Determine vertical

utilities
12. *Complete UG
utiliites
45. *Complete all

Basement/LAR Drawings
(3) *AEI design MEP

HVAC, Conduit &
piping mains B13
Object
Product
Product
Product
Scope
Attribute
Function
Scope . Building Spaces

Requirement
Relationship
includes
Requirement
Product Behavior Qualitative Threshhold values
Predicte Observed
d value
-
value -2 -1 0 1 2
John Kunz
Project Goals
Project Goal . Capacity (people) >= 60 - ?o
Project Goal . Cost (M$) = 70 - ?o
Goal . Net Energy Use (K-
Building BTU/ft2) <= 250 - ?o
Goal . Quality conformance
Building
Organization
(%) >= 12 - ?o Baseline Year-1
Organization Scope
Organization Scope . Actors includes - -
Rate ($K) Change (K$)
Organization Goals
Organization Goal . Predicted . Cost (K$) - <= - ?o
Revenue 100,000 2% 102,000
Goal . Observed . Response
Organization Latency (days) 3 <= - ?o Cost of contracted work 85% 85,000 -2.0% 84,660
Goal . Predicted . Peak
Organization Backlog (days) 3 <= - ?o Cost of self-performed work 10% 10,000 2.0% 12,240
Goal . Predicted . rework
Organization (FTE-days) - <= - ?o Gross Margin 5,000 5,100
Process
Process Goals Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,040
Process Goal . Peak Quality Risk < 0.50 - -
Goal . Schedule Growth IT investment 70
Process (months) < - ?o
Process Goal . Completion Date <= 1/1/09 - ?o Amortized costs of IT/yr 33% 23
Process Task . Action: Object
Process
Process
Task . Design:
Task . Predict:
Actor
Actor
Actor that designs
Actor that predicts
Net income 3,000 3,037
Process Task . Assess: Actor Actor that assesses
Time to payback (years) 1.9
Process Task . Build: Actor Actor that builds
Net Income change (%) 1.2
Big idea:
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) is a social
method, helped by technology, to create and evaluate multi-
discipline, multi-stakeholder VDC models extremely rapidly.
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
Overview
Session Goals
Integrated Develop, show and explain the product,
Concurrent organization, process, POP and 4D models as
Engineering well as analyses of each and recommendations
(ICE): for management based on the design exercise
– collaboratively and quickly
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 2

(c) 2013
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) Background
Given Performance change

• Objective = Rapid, effective design Latency (secs)
“extreme collaboration” (~1 week)

60000
• Excellent VDC software 40000
20000
• Collocated team 0 Latency
(secs)
XC
traditional
• iRoom
Good
• Good generic VDC project definition
templates Duration
• SD (DD) phase focus 300

250
200
150
100 Good traditional
50
0 XC
Duration (days)

(c) 2013
The big ideas of ICE
• The Big Ideas:

• Exceptional performance, e.g., Team-X at NASA-JPL
• It works because it achieves exceptionally short
information latency and short task durations, reliably.
• Multiple factors enable ICE to work.

(c) 2013
Goals of this design session:

Project Definition (v)
Define:
• What each of the teams expects to deliver
• What they expect from the other team members
• How can individuals coordinate their respective and collective scopes
• How team members know how work is progressing
• How team members know when (pre)construction is completed
• What work resources and methods can be used for (pre)construction
work
• What resources and work methods will be used for the (pre)construction

(c) 2013

Define:
• What each of the teams expects to deliver (plans, commitments)
• What they expect from the other team members (commitments)
(coordination commitments)
• How team members know how work is progressing (risks; measurable
process performance metrics)
(measurable outcomes)
work (controllable factors)
(commitments)

(c) 2013

For the product, organization and process, project definition clarifies and aligns:
• Functional objectives – what project stakeholders want –
– Specific deliverables, e.g., spaces, systems
– Conforming and highly reliable safety, schedule, quality and cost
• Scope – “forms” you create -- periodic design and construction deliverables,
including: designs of the
– Product (~weekly or daily) – to update objectives, designed scope,
predicted and measured behaviors
– Organization – groups of people to do tasks that work on the design
– Process (daily work) – tasks to design and manage, procure, fabricate,
deliver, construct and inspect
• Behaviors – what you predict and what you did – predict and measure
performance of designed scope
– With respect to specific stakeholder objectives
– Using methods of VDC, Integrated Project Delivery, Lean and Sustainable
development
(c) 2013
Potential value of VDC
• Better project or corporate VDC methods:

performance (measurably) • Models: Product (3/4D),
– Suggests need for ~weekly organization (commitments),
performance data: specify >=2 process (plan, schedule)
metrics each for P, O, P • Collaboration methods: ICE
• Better clarity of decision processes, • Analyses (model-based): Clash,
for Structure, QTO, cost, energy, …
– Decision-makers
• Metrics: Outcome, process,
– Execution team
controllable factors
– Executive team
• Better plans and clear commitments
for working team
• ↓Rework; ↓Work effort 
↑Profitability, ↑Business

(c) 2013
Product – Organization – Process (POP) Model

format:

(c) 2013
Process of Project Definition
• Build VDC project definition templates as a stakeholder

team
• Set functions (objectives) of Product, Organization, Process
• Design form or scope of Product, Organization, Process
• Identify project behaviors and define methods to predict,
assess and observe them

(c) 2013
Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) vs.

Building Information Modeling (BIM)
VDC
BIM

(c) 2013
Integrated Concurrent Engineering at JPL (ICE)
Photo thanks to JPL

Properties
• Collocated Organization (Closed Knowledge Network)
• Excellent Technical Infrastructure
• Formal Objective Metrics
• Informal Process and Culture

(c) 2013
Integrated Concurrent Engineering at CIFE
Integrated Collaborative Engineering (ICE) at CIFE

• Collocated Organization (Closed Knowledge Network)
• Excellent Technical Infrastructure
• Formal Objective Metrics
• Informal Process and Culture

(c) 2013
Without Integrated Concurrent Engineering
Source: @ammunition group: http://twitpic.com/5xs1vy

(c) 2013
Observations
ICE at NASA-JPL characteristics

• Organization: Multiple stations (~18)
• Process: careful design
• Technology:
– Multiple shared display screens
– Shared database (Icemaker)

(c) 2013
Coordination Latency is the fundamental

performance metric for knowledge work
• Response latency = Time from a designer posing a

question to receipt of a useful answer
• Decision latency = Time from receiving useful
information to making a decision with it
• Good engineering practice for both: 2 days

– weeks typical
• Why it is important: non value-adding time
• Measurable ICE Objective for latency: minutes,
reliably
– For and as assessed by all intended stakeholders

(c) 2013
Simple analysis of Latency
Traditional ICE (Team-X)

• Project requires • Project requires
 100 “queries” per  100 “queries” per
engineer @ Latency = 2 engineer @ Latency = 1
days (good!) minute
 100 modeling, analysis,  100 modeling, analysis,
meeting “tasks” @ task sidebar “tasks” @ task
durations < 2 days durations ~8 minutes
 Project duration ~ 200  Project duration ~ 2 calendar
calendar days (typical) days (Team-X)
 Latency paces schedule  Direct work (modeling +
(typical) analysis + documentation)
 Not direct work paces schedule (Team-X),
 Not coordination latency
(c) 2013
ICE requires latency management
• Latency extends schedules

– Interdependent tasks have incessant information requests
– Requests have response delays (latency)
– Latency adds no value, measures collaborative waste
• Integrated Concurrent Engineering dramatically cuts time and
latency
– Reduces latency from days to minutes
– Direct work tasks must run in minutes
– Enables radically decreased project duration
– Researchers, practitioners report improved cost, quality
– Requires high reliability (> 99%) latency: one major latency
source jeopardizes project success
– New organizational form

(c) 2013
How ICE (Team-X) works
Manages: Supports both:

1. Duration of direct work tasks 1. Associative (divergent) thinking
– Model, describe, predict, – Many options, intuitive,
explain, evaluate, generate including unique idea
alternatives, decide  Fluency (lots of options),
– Requires highly skilled Flexibility (different kinds),
engineers with excellent tools Original (at least one)
that they know well and culture 2. Analytical (convergent) thinking
that provides good enough  data, prediction, analysis,
answers evaluation and recommendations
2. Coordination Latency that believably support decision-
– Time for a designer to obtain making
usable information – Actionable
– Requires many enabling factors

(c) 2013
Ling on “Taking for grantedness” [1]
• We take some things for granted

– Calendar, clocks (and time and time zones), cell phones
– We make (generally similar) assumptions about what we will
(and expect others to do) to use things that we take for granted
• Ling’s steps toward “taking for grantedness”
1. Diffusion
2. Legitimization
3. Social ecology
4. Reciprocal expectations
[1] Taking for grantedness: The Embedding of Mobil

Communication Into Society, Rich Ling, MIT Press, 2013

(c) 2011
Implications of “taking ICE for granted”
• Implications of “taking ICE for granted”

1. Diffusion – Professional development to bring ICE,
BIM and metrics methods to the team
2. Legitimization
• Leadership to bring the method into practice
• Early successes to create demand to use it
3. Social ecology – fit ICE into the organization and the
project development process: e.g., number of
concurrent project assignments
4. Reciprocal expectations of participants

(c) 2011
Implications of “taking ICE for granted”
4. Reciprocal expectations of participants:

• Safety: participants feel that it is “ok” to participate
actively
• Session attendance: invitations, attendance
• Session homework: participant level of preparation for
sessions
• Support for in-session availability of and change of BIMs,
prediction tools, metrics and collaboration technologies
• Latency during and outside of sessions
• Decision stickiness
• Rules of engagement and conflict management in ICE
sessions

(c) 2011
Methods to enable a project to “take ICE for granted”

ICE pre-plan
Problems Outcomes Participants Agenda Resources
Member of
• Templates Problems for

session to
focus on
Desired
outcomes
Intended
Participants
Participant
discipline
Pre-session
assignments
Member of
pre-plan
team session
post-
Role in ICE session
wrapup
Agenda items
Outcome intent
met?
(Yes/Partial/No)
Meeting
space,
technologies,
(yes/no) team models, tools
– ICE pre-plan (yes/no)
Operations Agreement
Item Agreement Agreement details

Frequency:
Time:
ICE
Agenda (Attached?):
Sessions
Format: (Physical + Video Conference, ..)
Location:
Frequency:
Time:
– Operations agreement
Meetings Agenda (Attached?):
Format:
Location:
Decision Decision process:
Making Conflict resolution process:
Process Veto possibility:
Ground Commitments:
Rules Measurable process objectives:
Resources
Needed
BIM (VDC project model) Content Specification
Level of Due date of BIM content

Model BIM element BIM Element Level of detail (LOD)
All functions Type of BIM content BIM elements detail LOD) - next BIM conforms to Comment
LOD function - primary - AIA
comments version spec [Yes/No]
Product
– BIM (VDC project model) Content A
A+
Specification B
Other
Organization
Process
Deliverables
Due date
– Deliverables Planned
deliverables
Responsible team,
individuals
Receiving team Due date met
(yes/no)?
Expected LOD Comments
– Task and coordination commitments

Commitments - example
Budget Coordination
Responsible Approval Done on- Comments/ model
Task Priority Short description (FTE- dependent Due date
team team time image(s)
hours) team(s)

(c) 2011
Methods to enable a project to “take ICE for granted”
• Target values and performance metrics:

– Intended stakeholder timely and meaningful engagement in ICE
sessions
– Latency: response and decision
– Quality, cost, schedule, safety process and outcome
performance
– Individual and team preparation for sessions

(c) 2011
Use ICE for Target value design

for cost, schedule, energy, …
• Generate and
evaluate many
design options
w/ICE
Assessed project value and
• Select target cost predicted cost of many options
• Rapid design Value
Linear value
method: PIDO
+∆ curve
http://network.mod
efrontier.eu/docum
entation/pido.html
-∆
Wide design option space
Low High
Cost 25
(c) 2013

• Generate and
evaluate many
design options
w/ICE
Assessed project value and
• Select target cost predicted cost of many options
Value
Non-Linear
+∆ value curve
-∆
Low High
Cost 26
(c) 2013

• Generate and
evaluate many
design options
w/ICE
Assessed project value and predicted
• Select target schedule of many options
schedule Value
+∆
-∆
Low High
Schedule 27
(c) 2013
Use ICE for multi-discipline target value design:

Value
• When a change affects two “I can sell this”
measures of project success,
– Choose when upside value
exceeds downside risk
– E.g., - ∆ cost risk
< + ∆ upside schedule
compression value

(c) 2013
ICE Methods
Normal Stations Process

• Owner
• Product: model functions, • All stations simultaneously
scope, behaviors develop model inputs
• Organization: model • Coordinate continuously
functions, scope, behaviors • Assess and evaluate first
• Process: model functions, design option
scope, behaviors
• Integrated project: POP • Deliver project:
model – Definition
• Facilitator (session leader) – Objective assessment
• Project manager – Option evaluation

(c) 2013
Steps to perform ICE sessions …
• Pre-planning: a few days immediately prior to ICE

sessions
– Invite a very small set of project principals (2-4)
– Do project definition and identify VDC project definition
templates at Level-B with ~10 each of P, O, P elements
• Determine the design space to explore in ICE session:
– Invite relevant stakeholders to ICE session
– Select modeling and analysis tools and methods
• Assure that facility and intended tools are available
• ICE session: ~3 sessions within one week
– Frequent process checks (every ~20 minutes)
• Post-session: a few days immediately following ICE
sessions to create formal deliverables

(c) 2013
When to hold ICE sessions …
• For each major project phase

– at least early (concept and schematic), detailed (DD,
CD) and to plan construction
• Collaborating with your other stakeholders
• Hold a set of about 3 ICE sessions
• Build and analyze a project model for the next
phase in enough detail to identify objectives,
scope and predicted performance believably

(c) 2013
Why to hold an ICE session
• Do project definition rapidly and believably

– Define functional objectives, scope, behaviors of Project, i.e.,
• Product, Organization, Process
• Clearly identify tasks and deliverables for next period (week or month)
– Focus: product element and system(s) served
– Who: responsible group, individuals
– What: tasks to perform
– When: according to broadly reviewed and accepted schedule
– How: methods and resources to be used by responsible team(s)
to coordinate, do work and verify work
– Context: specific
• risks and uncertainties to address based on broad project
review
• coordination tasks to assure success given risks

(c) 2013
To plan a set of ICE sessions
• Enable effective use of ICE methods

– Professional development of potential team members - create
culture, methods, incentives
– Implement enabling tools: P, O, P modeling and analysis
applications, display technology, shared database
• Plan each set of ICE sessions: Identify
– Objectives and intended deliverables: models, analyses, reports,
recommendations, …
– Number of sessions and calendar schedule: typically 2-4 over ~ 1
week
– Intended participants, tasks for each session
– Effort and time budgets for use of ICE sessions
– Process performance metrics and methods: measured and
assessed quality, schedule, cost

(c) 2013
ICE deliverables …
• Functions: statement of project objectives for P, O, P

• Scope:
– Design of multiple P, O, P options in large design space
– P, O, P models for use by next phase
• Behaviors: predicted P, O, P performance
• Evaluation of acceptability of options given objectives
• Risk assessment and mitigation strategy
• Recommendation for new P, O, P design option(s)
• Proposed product design, team, schedule and
responsibilities for next phase

(c) 2013
ICE vs. traditional meetings in construction
Traditional
Issue ICE
meetings
Outcome re issue at Resolution Tracking of status
hand
Agenda management Focused on clear, shared Tangents, pursuit of
agenda personal agendas
Description of Shared and clear Individual
problem and context perceptions
Number of options Multiple; consider what- Focused on agenda
considered ifs of one individual
Supporting Interactive visual models Paper and appeal to
technologies and analyses understanding of
others

ICE Enabling Factors

(Committed) (Visual)
(Dynamic) Process
Organization Technology
Stakeholders Present: Processes clear: (low Excellent discipline-
(Closed knowledge equivocality) specific modeling,
network) visualization tools
Focused design staff: Processes distinct: Rich
100% committed in High structure communications
sessions independence media
Flat organization Resolve problems in Integrated database
structure small self-formed
groups (Pooled
communications)
Egalitarian culture
High goal congruence

(c) 2013
Staff survey: Example of how senior management helps
1. I feel that I can challenge people at any level in my organization without fear.
2. I feel I can ask for and receive the resources (time, budget, equipment) I need to solve
problems.
3. My Manager/Supervisor makes it easy to speak up when problems arise.
4. My Manager /Supervisor listens to bad news, yet still asks for unrealistic targets.
5. When we present bad news, our Manager/Supervisor repeatedly asks for more
information focused on showing that the problem is not as bad as it seems.
6. My Manager/Supervisor encourages us to ask for help outside our organization or the
chain of command (e.g., outside our project or work group or next level up) if we need it.
7. I am aware of what to do when a Manager/Supervisor doesn’t respond appropriately to
bad news and it needs to be escalated to a higher level.
8. My team uses metrics and processes effectively (e.g., trend program, standard metrics,
etc.) to analyze, surface & solve problems.
9. In my organization, we live by our corporate values
10. The formal metrics in my organization often do not convey an accurate picture of
performance.

(c) 2013
Organization Enabling factor:

Stakeholders Present: (Closed knowledge network)
• Objective: knowledge and authority always present

• Meaning: Requisite knowledge, procedures, options,
and authority are immediately available in the room
(almost always)
• Risk factors: sidebars; unanswered sidebars
• Team-X Methods:
– Heavy reliance on collaborative design sessions
– Designer collocation during sessions
– Careful participants selection and training
– Pre-plan to identify needed participants

(c) 2013

Design staff focus
• Objective: 100% available during meetings

• Meaning: Design session participants focus
exclusively on project work during design sessions
• Risk factors: Designers have other responsibilities
during design sessions, so team waits for expertise
• Team-X Methods:
– Management support of focus
– Short sessions enable managers to free valued staff

(c) 2013

Hierarchy structure
• Objective: Flat
• Meaning: Minimal required decision-making structure
and overhead
• Risk factors: Soliciting management approval
challenges short latency
• Team-X Methods:
– No managers
– Culture of autonomy and respect
– One facilitator (session leader)

(c) 2013

Egalitarian culture
• Objective: Egalitarian
• Meaning: Positions assume empowered decision-
making and low management overhead
• Risk factors: Soliciting management approval
challenges short latency
• Team-X Methods:
– Culture of autonomy and respect
– Careful recruitment
– Decisions and decision processes highly visible to all

(c) 2013

Goal Congruence
• Objective: Highly congruent

• Meaning: participants know and aspire to same goals
and methods
• Risk factors: positions debate priorities or methods
• Team-X Methods:
– Discuss goals and methods at session start
– Facilitator (session leader) attention
– Culture of congruence
– Analysis and decisions very visible to all

(c) 2013
Process Enabling factor:

Processes clear: (low equivocality)
• Objective: design, coordination and construction processes clear

• Meaning: all participants understand and accept procedures,
goals and objectives
– Implies that method applies only to well-understood processes
• Risk factors: positions ask for and wait for facilitator (session
leader) decisions
• Team-X Methods:
• Use only for well-understood processes
– Pre-plan for process clarity
– Culture of autonomy
– Excellent process facilitator (session leader)

(c) 2013
Processes distinct: (High structure independence)
• Objective: design processes clearly separated

• Meaning: Design tasks are distinct, positions all
understand their responsibilities and can proceed
with minimal management oversight
• Risk factors: positions solicit or wait for facilitator
(session leader) decisions
• Team-X Methods:
– Use only for projects that allow independence
– Pre-plan for independence
– Staff selection and training
– Culture of autonomy
(c) 2013

Resolve problems in small self-formed groups (Pooled communications)
• Objective: Pooled communications

• Meaning: Participants resolve problems in small self-
formed groups
• Risk factors: Formal or inflexible coordination
requirements
• Team-X Methods:
– Collocation
– Shared project (POP) model
– Shared projection screens
– Sidebar culture

(c) 2013
Technology Enabling factor:

Modeling, Visualization Tools
• Objective: Excellent
• Meaning: Discipline-specific tools allow all positions to
do direct work very fast
• Risk factors: Manual design activities or poor tools
bottleneck schedule; Other designers fail to understand
a model
• Team-X Methods:
– Modeling, visualization, analysis and decision support tools
enable all critical path tasks
– High team experience
– Shared project (POP) model

(c) 2013

Communications Media
• Objective: Rich
• Meaning: Shared and personal, visual, multi-
disciplinary, showing functional requirements, design
choices and predicted behaviors
• Risk factors: Slow process to describe models,
explain rationale, evaluate choices, make predictions,
create alternatives
• Team-X Methods:
– Mature modeling and analysis tools
– Personal workstations
– Shared “iRoom” displays

(c) 2013

Shared Project Database
• Objective: Integrated
• Meaning: Discipline-specific models all access and
store shared data easily
• Risk factors: data reentry, missing shared data
• Team-X Methods:
– Develop good shared generic (POP) model ontology
– Applications have developed uniform semantics for shared
data
– Designated position assures consistency

(c) 2013
Assessment of status of ICE Enabling Factors

(Committed) (Dynamic) Process (Visual)
Organization Technology
Stakeholders Present: Processes clear: (low Excellent discipline-
equivocality): specific modeling,
visualization tools:
Focused design staff: Processes distinct: Rich
100% committed in communications
sessions: media:
Flat organization Resolve problems in Integrated database:
structure: small self-formed
groups:
Egalitarian culture
High goal congruence:

(c) 2013
ICE Enabling factors: so what?
• Necessity: excellent ICE performance requires all

factors to work well
• Sufficiency: No one factor suffices
• Early evidence (Stanford classes) of necessity,
sufficiency of these factors (from observations or
theoretically-founded simulation)
• Process and team experience are crucial, so
understanding factors may help understand how to
change Team-X to
– Make specific improvements
– Replicate Team-X (in less than 10 years it to create it)

(c) 2013
Goals of ICE sessions session:

Define:
• What each of the teams expects to deliver (plans, commitments)
• What they expect from the other team members (commitments)
(coordination commitments)
• How team members know how work is progressing (risks; measurable
process performance metrics)
(measurable outcomes)
work (controllable factors)
(commitments)

(c) 2013
Deliverable commitment template - example
Deliverables Example
Planned Responsible team, Due date

Deliverable format Receiving team Due date Expected LOD Comments
deliverable individuals met (y/n)?
BIM spec for BIM content
Core team BIM architect Mm/dd Top-10 $ elements
current step template (Excel)
BIM content No team priority
BIM review Review team x 50 PM Mm/dd [1:5] each team
template (Excel) yet
Schedule of assets
Excel format BIM author FM manager Mm/dd all rooms > 10 ft2
to manage
Next step plan Task size 2-5 FTE-
Core team PM Mm/dd
development weeks
Sr Mgt approve
email Sr Management PM Mm/dd Yes/no/ buts Decision required
next step

(c) 2013
Coordination commitment template
Planned Responsible Due Due Expected Comments

coordination individuals date date met LOD
activity (y/n)?
Commitment
conformance
Time

(c) 2013
Controllable factors template - example
Controllable Factors
Range of options: choice Action Taken?
Factor Type Factor Constraints Action(s) for this week
impacts BIM specifications (Yes, Partial, No)
Features of size from 1 mm to >
Product Detail of water line in 3D None important Model features size > 20 mm
1m
Adjust both equipment location, model equipment located in water this
Product Location of in-water equipment Size of equipment
water width/depth profile week
Adjust author count up and down
Organization Number of BIM authors <1 – many FTEs Budget BIM author work
slowly
Organization Number of BIM reviewers Author team – hundreds Size of BIM review facility Budget BIM reviewer work
Need to plan prefabrication early
Process Construction duration 6 months to 2 years Get owner preference
to shorten construction period
One task for whole team/week to Availability of staff to plan, Build short-interval production plan and
Process Size of weekly pre-con tasks
all tasks with > 0.5 FTE-day manage schedule schedule at feasible LOD
BIM authoring, BIM review, Training of review team to Provide and train in best available tool
Process Tool used for BIM review
Navisworks understand content supported within company
do not do it to invite core team + Need to do it at least 3 days
Process Invitation list next meeting Invite estimator, others x 10 by COB today
all who might help before meeting
Agenda items: 1 + 2-5
subheadings; purpose set by
Develop agenda, purpose,
current project status; outcomes create agenda; coordinate with AV; test
Process intended outcomes of next meeting date; attendee availability
none to schedule and technology
meeting
commitment clarity of assigned
tasks x 5-10

(c) 2013
Metrics Implementation template - example
Metrics
Intent Prediction Evaluation

Predicted/
Stakeholders
Target How to use in Type [P, Collection measured Assesed
Name Comment Tolerance: +-∆ Source of data who saw data Objective Weight
value management O] frequency value (how value
last week
you are doing)
Guide
Quality: POE satisfaction wrt Client Turnover time
M program (%)
100 5 commissioning, next
assessment
O Owner only
+ 6-24 months
40 98 3
job
Cost conformance to plan (item Client

E actual - predicted/predicted)
100 5 Plan next job
assessment
O PM only Turnover time 25 1
Client
T Schedule conformance to plan (%) 100 10 Plan next job
assessment
O All on team Turnover time 35 95 3
Predicted Cost conformance to plan Attention Periodic project

R (item actual - predicted/predicted)
100 5
management progress report
P Subteam only Weekly 15 99 3
Production schedule conformance Attention Periodic project

I to plan (%)
90 10
P Owner only Weekly 10 75 2
Assessed Quality conformance to

Attention Periodic project
C plan (% of items with rating >=4 on 100 10
P Subteam only Weekly 15 95 3
scale 1:5)
Adjust plan by Periodic project

Stakeholder participation that is
S timely and meaningful (%)
90 10 stakeholder review stakeholder P All on team Weekly 10 90 3
and assessments survey
C: Controllable; P: Process; O: Outcome

(c) 2013
Assessed status template - example

Assesed value - taken from Metrics Example
Comment: Graph shows assessed status of the

predicted/measured performance of each metric
defined in Metrics template
Managerial significance of this assessed metrics

Quality: POE satisfaction wrt status graph: Most metrics have very good
program (%) predicted performance for this design version.
Team preparation: Fraction of Team should focus attention on high risk areas of
3
participants saying that other Cost conformance to plan (item cost and production schedule conformance.
team members came prepared 2.5 actual - predicted/predicted)
to meeting (%)
Personal preparation: Faction of 2
participants that say they Schedule conformance to plan
understood modeled design 1.5 (%)
content and rationale (%)
1
0.5
Predicted Cost conformance to
Fraction of prefab assemblies
0 plan (item actual - Assesed value
that take <=1 day to install (%)
predicted/predicted)
Production schedule
Field RFIs (count)
conformance to plan (%)
Assessed Quality conformance

Latency: % responses received
to plan (% of items with rating
<= 1 day
>=4 on scale 1:5)
Stakeholder participation that is
timely and meaningful (%)
Home

(c) 2013
Risk template - example
Risks - Example
Individuals
Severity: Earliest
Potential Parties responsible for Resolution
Low, analysis/ last Mitigation
Identified risk impact of risk affected by mitigating date met Comments
Medium, responsible activity
($, time, effort) risk design, (Yes/No)?
High moment dates
approval
BIM ready Client Early partner BIM Best to set

Dramatic Day-1/ end of
partner teams High relationship training for expectat-ions
schedule concept phase
available team partner staff early
Costs/
Concept Day-1/ end of
Sea level rise curtailed Medium Operations Dikes 100-year risk
design team Concept
operations
Engage
Goverment Delay open Day-1/ facility
Medium Operations Core group government Ongoing risk
plan OK day open
review early
Paint spec Cost: use Client Core group Vet across
Day-1/ facility
unclear or contingency; Low different
open
inappropriate schedule delay examples
Time

(c) 2013
To read more
• Section Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)

supports VDC
– Pp 34-38 in VDC recommended reading
– "Virtual Design and Construction: Themes, Case Studies and
Implementation Suggestions," CIFE working Paper #97, 2011.

(c) 2013
ORID: Focused Conversation and Analysis
Reflective Reflective
Objective Interpretive Decisional
Positive Negative
What do you recall What sense do you What agreements
What do you feel What do you find
seeing? make of it? can be made now?
positive about? negative?

(c) 2013
Overview
Session Objectives
Integrated Develop, show and explain the product,

Concurrent organization, process, POP and 4D models as
Engineering well as analyses of each and recommendations
(ICE): for management based on the design exercise
– collaboratively and quickly

(c) 2013

ICE Integrated Concurrent Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICE Integrated Concurrent Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)

Integrated Concurrent Engineering

MEP, Teledata room design KPFF

Task 28 H Block Crew SRG Tele Data

Final Program Review skin changes w/db team Final Program

Lab Planning Program Review 80%

*Cal OSHA Recommend

3. Complete Tele Data Design *City Accept

50. Designate size, location of G accept

19. *Determine vertical

45. *Complete all

(3) *AEI design MEP

Scope . Building Spaces

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 2

Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) Background

Given Performance change

“extreme collaboration” (~1 week)

• SD (DD) phase focus 300

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 3

The big ideas of ICE

• The Big Ideas:

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 4

Goals of this design session:

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 5

Goals of this design session:

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 6

Goals of this design session:

Potential value of VDC

• Better project or corporate VDC methods:

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 8

Product – Organization – Process (POP) Model

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 9

Process of Project Definition

• Build VDC project definition templates as a stakeholder

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 10

Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) vs.

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 11

Integrated Concurrent Engineering at JPL (ICE)

Photo thanks to JPL

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 12

Integrated Concurrent Engineering at CIFE

Integrated Collaborative Engineering (ICE) at CIFE

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 13

Without Integrated Concurrent Engineering

Source: @ammunition group: http://twitpic.com/5xs1vy

ICE at NASA-JPL characteristics

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 15

Coordination Latency is the fundamental

• Response latency = Time from a designer posing a

• Good engineering practice for both: 2 days

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 16

Simple analysis of Latency

Traditional ICE (Team-X)

ICE requires latency management

• Latency extends schedules

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 18

How ICE (Team-X) works

Manages: Supports both:

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 19

Ling on “Taking for grantedness” [1]

• We take some things for granted

[1] Taking for grantedness: The Embedding of Mobil