Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

In Fiscal Year 2011 Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) implemented a new project management system called Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM). Recent NASA audits have found that the Dryden workforce is strained under increasing project demand and that multi-tasking has been carried to a whole new level at Dryden. It is very common to have an individual work on 10 different projects during a single pay period. Employee surveys taken at Dryden have identified work/life balance as the number one issue concerning employees. Further feedback from the employees indicated that project planning is the area needing the most improvement. In addition, employees have been encouraged to become more innovative, improve job skills, and seek ways to improve overall job efficiency. In order to deal with these challenges, DFRC management decided to adopt the CCPM system that is specifically designed to operate in a resource constrained multi-project environment. This paper will discuss in detail the rationale behind the selection of CCPM and the goals that will be achieved through this implementation. The paper will show how DFRC is tailoring the CCPM system to the flight research environment as well as laying out the implementation strategy. Results of the ongoing implementation will be discussed as well as change management challenges and organizational cultural changes. Finally this paper will present some recommendations on how this system could be used by selected NASA projects or centers.

pages cm

Current project management literature exhibits a rise in popularity (at least in discussion) of Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM), a management concept based on Eli Goldratt's Theory of Constraints. Some of the literature notes this to be a significant departure from current methods; others claim it is really not revolutionary at all, but is instead a coherent compilation of long-known techniques (McKay and Morton 1998). Some organizations that have implemented the technique report good progress; others report no progress. Intuitively, many of the concepts are good rules that any project should follow, regardless of whether the organization directly embraces the CCPM concept. A fair amount has been written about the differences between CCPM and traditional project management techniques (notably Steyn (2000), Leach (2000), and Herroelen and Leus (2001)). There has also been a reasonable amount written about sizing the buffers when establishing the critical chain plan (notably Goldratt (1997), Leach (1999, 2000), Herroelen and Leus (2001), Hoel and Taylor (1999)). However, while the available literature about sizing the buffers does note some general differences between the methods, it fails to mention or recommend cases where one technique is superior to another (nor does it state that such a recommendation would be inappropriate).

Current project management literature exhibits a rise in popularity (at least in discussion) of Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM), a management concept based on Eli Goldratt's Theory of Constraints. Some of the literature notes this to be a significant departure from current methods; others claim it is really not revolutionary at all, but is instead a coherent compilation of long-known techniques (McKay and Morton 1998). Some organizations that have implemented the technique report good progress; others report no progress. Intuitively, many of the concepts are good rules that any project should follow, regardless of whether the organization directly embraces the CCPM concept. A fair amount has been written about the differences between CCPM and traditional project management techniques (notably Steyn (2000), Leach (2000), and Herroelen and Leus (2001)). There has also been a reasonable amount written about sizing the buffers when establishing the critical chain plan (notably Goldratt (1997), Leach (1999, 2000), Herroelen and Leus (2001), Hoel and Taylor (1999)). However, while the available literature about sizing the buffers does note some general differences between the methods, it fails to mention or recommend cases where one technique is superior to another (nor does it state that such a recommendation would be inappropriate).

Current project management literature exhibits a rise in popularity (at least in discussion) of Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM), a management concept based on Eli Goldratt's Theory of Constraints. Some of the literature notes this to be a significant departure from current methods; others claim it is really not revolutionary at all, but is instead a coherent compilation of long-known techniques (McKay and Morton 1998). Some organizations that have implemented the technique report good progress; others report no progress. Intuitively, many of the concepts are good rules that any project should follow, regardless of whether the organization directly embraces the CCPM concept. A fair amount has been written about the differences between CCPM and traditional project management techniques (notably Steyn (2000), Leach (2000), and Herroelen and Leus (2001)). There has also been a reasonable amount written about sizing the buffers when establishing the critical chain plan (notably Goldratt (1997), Leach (1999, 2000), Herroelen and Leus (2001), Hoel and Taylor (1999)). However, while the available literature about sizing the buffers does note some general differences between the methods, it fails to mention or recommend cases where one technique is superior to another (nor does it state that such a recommendation would be inappropriate).

Current project management literature exhibits a rise in popularity (at least in discussion) of Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM), a management concept based on Eli Goldratt's Theory of Constraints. Some of the literature notes this to be a significant departure from current methods; others claim it is really not revolutionary at all, but is instead a coherent compilation of long-known techniques (McKay and Morton 1998). Some organizations that have implemented the technique report good progress; others report no progress. Intuitively, many of the concepts are good rules that any project should follow, regardless of whether the organization directly embraces the CCPM concept. A fair amount has been written about the differences between CCPM and traditional project management techniques (notably Steyn (2000), Leach (2000), and Herroelen and Leus (2001)). There has also been a reasonable amount written about sizing the buffers when establishing the critical chain plan (notably Goldratt (1997), Leach (1999, 2000), Herroelen and Leus (2001), Hoel and Taylor (1999)). However, while the available literature about sizing the buffers does note some general differences between the methods, it fails to mention or recommend cases where one technique is superior to another (nor does it state that such a recommendation would be inappropriate).