Target Value Design - Lean Construction Institute

Transcription

Carolinas LCI TVD Presentation
12/3/2013
Provider Name: Lean Construction Institute Provider Number – H561
Course Name: Target Value Design for the Lean Design Team
Course Number: 20131111
Course Speakers: Dick Bayer, The Realignment Group
Katherine Blume, Southland Industries
Course Date: November 11, 2013
11/13/2013
Credit(s) earned (4.0 LU) on completion of this course will be reported to AIA CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non‐AIA members are available upon request.
1
This course is registered with AIA CES
for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of
handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.
_______________________________________
Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.
11/13/2013
11/13/13
2
1
12/3/2013
Copyright Materials
This presentation is protected by US and International Copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation without written permission of the speaker is prohibited.
11/13/2013
3
Course
Description
This class will provide a basis history of lean and show how lean can be applied to the design process. The class will focus on the Target Value design process, what it is, how it works, what the roles are for each team member and how it has successfully allowed teams to design to the cost model of the customer. Set based design will be demonstrated as a key component of Target Value Design. The participated will engage in a simulation on a project to develop set based design option and use them design the project to the target value while still maintaining the client goals.
11/13/2013
11/13/13
4
2
12/3/2013
Learning
Objectives
At the end of the this workshop, participants will be able to:
1. Examine the history of Lean and its diffusion through project‐based organizations.
2. How to successfully implement Target Value Design on projects to ensure that the budget and quality of the design meets the clients expectations.
3. Understanding the connection between Target Value Design and Set Based Design and how to use them effectively. 4. How to migrate Lean and Target Value Design into your Enterprise through your consultants and vendors, and how to help control and manage Lean with your clients, contractors and agencies to create a Lean Culture.
5. Honestly recognizing and communicating the limits of Lean within a project‐based culture and work around it to continue your Lean Journey.
11/13/2013
5
This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems Course
Lean Construction Institute 11/13/2013
11/13/13
[email protected]
6
3
12/3/2013
Target Value Design
Design is principally a social activity.
-- Gregory Howell
February 27, 2012
11/13/2013
7
Big Ideas
• Value is determined by the Customer
11/13/2013
11/13/13
8
4
12/3/2013
Big Ideas
• The budget is actually buckets of money
and is allowed to be moved where needed
Mechanical
Electrical
11/13/2013
Curtain Wall
Mill Work
9
Big Ideas
• Set Based Design
11/13/2013
11/13/13
10
5
12/3/2013
Big Ideas
• Finding synergies
• Strong, yet
. . . light
11/13/2013
11
Big Ideas
11/13/2013
11/13/13
12
6
11/13/2013
12/3/2013
13
Our Assumptions
•
•
•
•
You understand basic lean
You have a project
You have a budget the team believes in
You have a desire to review the basic
assumptions of the budget to drive more
value to the project
• You have the team and means to do so
11/13/2013
11/13/13
14
7
12/3/2013
Integrated project delivery
11/13/2013
15
Commercial model
Steps:
 Establish and validate expected cost
 Establish a “Target Cost”
 Use Target Value Design to get to Target Cost
 Share Savings below Target Cost
 Put fee at risk above Target Cost
11/13/2013
11/13/13
16
8
12/3/2013
Commercial model
Owner’s
overruns
All Team
Fees
Fees at
Risk
All Team
Fees
Expected
Cost
Target
Cost
Reduced
Fee
Eats all
Fees
Target
Cost
Shared
Savings
Actual
Cost
Expected
Cost
Actual
Cost
Actual
Cost
11/13/2013
17
Target value design
Programming
Decisions:
What’s
Viable?
Target
Value Design
11/13/2013
18
© 2011 Lean Construction Institute used with permission of Dick Bayer
11/13/13
9
12/3/2013
Project Planning
1
2
Effort/Effect
3
4
PD
SD
DD
CD
PR
1
Ability to Impact Cost and
Functional Capabilities
2
3
4
Cost of Design Changes
Traditional Design Process
IPD Method
CA
OP
Time
11/13/2013
19
Three Ideas
11/13/2013
11/13/13
20
10
12/3/2013
Three Ideas
Cross
Functional
11/13/2013
21
Three Ideas
Cross
Functional
11/13/2013
11/13/13
Sets
22
11
12/3/2013
Three Ideas
Cross
Functional
11/13/2013
Targets
Sets
23
what?
DAY 1
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:30
11:00
11:30
AM: KICKOFF
Welcome / Group Intro
Shopping Cart Video / Learning
TVD / SBD Process overview
Conditions of Satisfaction / Metrics
Cluster Group topics / assignments
Milestone schedule
DAY 1 PM: CLUSTER WORK
12:00 Lunch w/ Clusters
Big Idea Research (Concept / Impacts /
Confidence)
A3 support as needed
Presentation prep by clusters
DAY 2 AM: INTEGRATE AT IDEA LEVEL
8:30
Prep / Inter-cluster coordination
9:30
Big Idea report outs (Concept /
Impacts / Confidence)
10:30
Set Log (Values Matrix?)
11:00
Selection Sets w/ Impacts
Day 2 PM: CONCEPTS
12:00 Lunch w/ Design Teams
Extreme Design
Impacts to Targets
4:00 Design Concept presentations
DAY 1 EVENING: SHARE W/ COMMUNITY
TVD process overview
Cluster Report outs realtime specifics
11/13/2013
11/13/13
24
12
12/3/2013
What are the Work Products?
Alignment
Research
DAY 1: innovation
Kickoff
Research
Vision
Opportunities
Methodology
Factor Impacts
Teams
Evaluation
Extremes
DAY 2: creativity
Charettes
Collaborative Design
Impacts
Evaluation
Idea Sets
Design
Alternatives
11/13/2013
25
Three Ideas
Cross
Functional
11/13/2013
11/13/13
Targets
Sets
26
13
12/3/2013
who?
•
•
•
•
Knowledge
Group dynamics
High Energy
Creative Thinkers –
“Outside the Box”
11/13/2013
27
The power of the group
• Encourage new thinking
• Build on the ideas of
others
• Promote team decision
making
• All ideas are valid
• Instill confidence…you
are the experts
11/13/2013
11/13/13
28
14
12/3/2013
Six Clusters, One Team
11/13/2013
29
Design to Budget / Schedule
BIM
661 TI
661
Envelope
661 MEP
Plus MEP
Plus
Massing /
Structure
Sustainability
Leader:
Derek Flowers
Team:
Tommy G
Tim W
Steve
Bill M
Adam
11/13/2013
11/13/13
Leader:
Chris Taylor
Team:
Raj V
Rich S
John W
Brian C
Ken L
Amanda G
Leader:
Sarah Brand
Team:
Heidi P
Mike Brace
Tim M
Jim K
Rebecca H
Doug M
Leader:
Mark Kosin
Team:
Jesse O
Dave S
Scott W
Jim P
Chuck A
Mark A
Johann M
Leader:
Andreas Phelps
Team:
Barry K
Larry H
Oscar G
Genelle M
Ryan W
30
15
12/3/2013
Three Ideas
Cross
Functional
11/13/2013
Targets
Sets
31
Set-Based Design is not Point Based Design
Point-Based Design
11/13/2013
11/13/13
Set-Based Design
Figures from Ward et al. 1995
32
16
12/3/2013
A Set Based Methodology
The Integration Events
11/13/2013
33
Set Based Design
11/13/2013
11/13/13
34
17
12/3/2013
Set Based Design
11/13/2013
35
The Innovation / Risk Balance
11/13/2013
11/13/13
36
18
12/3/2013
The Innovation / Risk Balance
11/13/2013
37
Three Ideas
Cross
Functional
11/13/2013
11/13/13
Targets
Sets
38
19
12/3/2013
Alternatives
11/13/2013
39
Big Ideas
TARGET VALUE DESIGN BIG IDEAS
Decision Y/N
COUNT
1. Consolidate 7 to 6 sites, with 1:80 ratio. Distribute/add units to clusters. Shift clusters together reiterating the connectivity of the Mall concept and compressing the site. Can we deliver without compromise a continuum of care based upon a focus for a simplified prototype.
Y
28
SCOPE
2. Reduction of GSF to 6.0A ‐ Create Facility to FPS Sq. Footage
Y
30
63% Remaining*749,067=471,912
SF*$493.76/SF
$111,548
3. Reduce program GSF an additional 10%. Reduction to FPS 6.0
4. Maximize Regionalization/Regionalization/Call Center: Investigate opportunities for operational efficiency via regionalized systems, information management and JIT scheduling.
Y
30
$105,000
Y
5
$25,850
SCHEDULE
COST CAPITAL
COST OPERATION
STAFFING
COMMENTS
Assignments
Overall Savings = 24‐30 months
$180‐190M + escalation
$27.8M + other operating expenses
$27.8M + recruiting training retention
* Number 1
Stan Chiu/Jeff Rock/John Paul Peterson/Vinson Johnson
EXTREME VALUE DESIGN (#1 ‐ 8)
$23M (471,912SF)
275,507SF/749,067SF = 37%
MED (3‐5 WEEKS)
MED
$35‐$40M
MED (3‐10%)
LOW (0‐10 FTE)
$26‐$30M
MED (3‐10%)
LOW (0‐10 FTE)
* Number 3
$1.4‐2.1M
$6.85M
6%
* Number 4 Evelyn Warner
$5.6M‐$7M
$22.8M
20%
* Number 5
Craig Greenough/Debbie Hoffman/Patti Crome
N/A
N/A
* Number 6 Kaushal Diwan/Ron Migliori
N/A
5. Benchmarking/Lean/Productivity Metrics
Y
2
$86,150
N/A
6. Use modular/prefabricated structures for Housing & Cluster Supports
Y
2
N/A
MED (3‐5 WEEKS)
$12‐18M
LOW
N/A
N/A
<$14M/Annual>
LOW
10
<$3.3K>
6 WEEKS
$3M
HIGH
11
Neutral
7. Modular meal service/Pre‐tray entire system/pre‐packed convenience foods
8. Outsourcing: Meals provided by vendor.
Y
Y
$10M
* Number 2
* Number 7
Vinson Johnson
Steven Powell
Tom Hoerstman
* Number 8 Tom Hoerstman
Neutral
$5M
N/A
Low Hanging Fruit
Bob Levine/Craig Greenough/Tim Belke
2. Question "N+1". Redundancy in system
Y
13
N/A
N/A
$2.4‐$4M
MED (3‐4%)
N/A
Low Hanging Fruit
Tim Belke/Craig Greenough
3. Multi‐use rooms
Y
16
MED
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
Low Hanging Fruit
Rapid Response (#1 ‐ 11)
1. Centralize the CUP.
Y
N/A
Scott Wing
4. Reduce building hardness
Y
21
Neutral
Neutral
$2.8‐$4.2M
N/A
N/A
Low Hanging Fruit, Security included on research
Bob Levine/Ron Migliori
5. Eliminate dining rooms/All dining in day rooms or bedside
Y
28
6,600SF
Neutral
HIGH, $3.4 MILLION
$300K
HIGH, 21 FTE
Low Hanging Fruit
Kaushal Diwan/Tom Felker/Scott Wing/Claudia Latchman
6. Relaxation of Basis of Design (BOD)
Y
N/A
N/A
$3‐6M
$50K/YR
N/A
Low Hanging Fruit
Craig Greenough/Tim Belke
Low Hanging Fruit
Craig Greenough/Bob Levine
N/A
$5.3M
N/A
MED, $5‐20M
LOW
$470,000
10. Rehab/Physical Rehab move KIT to Unit ‐ NOURISHMENT CENTER
Y
<1,320>
N/A
$400,000
N/A
N/A
11. Laundry ‐ Construct production Laundry, base condition" outsource.
7. Achieve a better ratio of SF to perimeter
Y
Y
ADD SF TO BUILDING
ADD TIME TO SCHEDULE
<$16M>
MEDIUM, $6M
HIGH, 64 FTE
8. Rehab: Education self/distance learning
Y
9. Executive conference facilities (training room outside)
Y
$40,000
3
0
10,000
N/A
HIGH
LOW
N/A
2 FTE
LOW
Low Hanging Fruit
Scott Wing
Low Hanging Fruit
Vinson Johnson
Low Hanging Fruit
Claudia Latchman
Low Hanging Fruit (Calc. Only) Recalc on PIA, verify math.
Tom Felker
PENDING RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Hybrization of HVAC
Y
Room Standardization/Space/FF&E
Y
8
N/A
N/A
N/A
Can gymnasium be eliminated on all sites?
Y
14
$18,450
LOW (0‐2 WEEKS)
$6‐$8M
LOW
LOW
Y
Y
21
LOW, 7,000 SF
N/A
NO CHANGE
LOW
N/A
TBD
N/A
MED (3‐10%)
LOW (0‐10 FTE)
MED (11‐35 FTE)
Service center located centralized to optimize robotic AGV delivery
Locate Mental Health & High Acuity to their own sites
Single room buildings/All dorm buildings
Y
N/A
Neutral
$0 $500‐700K
LOW
Neutral
$1.7M
Neutral
N/A
<$17.1‐20M>
$3.8M/YR
N/A
LOW
Review A3 on outside perimeter
Neutral
Improved indoor environmental quality
Y
Broadbanding/Alternative Staffing
Y
10
LOW
N/A
MED
HIGH
HIGH
Organize D&T into procedure, diagnostic, clinic/clinical centers. Modify the size of the mental health clinic to maximize patient access to necessary levels of care & reduce costs?
Y
5
18,178SF
LOW (0‐2 WEEKS)
$8.7M
$1.3M
$1m, 9FTE
Self Care laundry ‐ Laundry in Day Rooms
Y
10
ADD SF TO BUILDING
NO CHANGE
$140,000 COST
MEDIUM, $2.1 MILLION
NO STAFF REQUIRED
Medication Tracking: Track medication location/Patient usage and distribution
‐‐
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Patient Care impact? Terry Hill Review.
Incentives for wellness/Effective Rehab Programs
‐‐
5
N/A
N/A
LOW
LOW
LOW
Synchronize resources on research. Do not pay for services twice. Extract information from team working rehabilitation. Support for idea: Clarify who is doing work.
1
1
How can the housing setting allow clinicians maximize flexibility to assess and evaluate patient status to allow movement and transfers that are supportive of their therapeutic treatment? Of primary concern is the careful coordination of DMH/CDCR handoffs?
‐‐
N/A
N/A
LOW
N/A
LOW
N/A
N/A
$0 5M
$0‐5M
0 3%
0‐3%
LOW
LOW
Work performed by unions. Receiver is not going to take on the unions. Avoid legal issues.
Not enough information
Self Care medications ‐ MEDICATION VENDING
RFID Asset Tracking/Inventory & equipment locator
Point of Use Material Mgt/Point of Use MMIS and JIT Mgt. Plan.
‐‐
Y
Y
N/A
0 10K SF
0‐10K SF
N/A
N/A
N/A
Benchmark grossing factor vs. net
Y
2
0‐10K SF
N/A
$0‐5M
N/A
N/A
Y
3
0‐10K SF
N/A
$5.1M‐$20M
0‐3%
0‐10 FTE
Produce entrée only by vendor
Y
10
HIGH, 43,000 S.F.
NO CHANGE
HIGH, $4.6M
MEDIUM, $1.9M
MEDIUM, 20 FTE
Combine with other effort.
Information Technology ‐ Telemedicine
Y
13
0‐10K SF
N/A
$7M
$4.5M
20 FTE
See David Noronha, Terry Hill review/collaboration needed
Consolidate 7 to 6 sites, without exceeding the 1:64 ratio. Distribute/add units to clusters. Shift clusters together reiterating the connectivity of the Mall concept and compressing the site. Can we deliver without compromise a continuum of care based upon a focus for a simplified prototype.
0 10 FTE
0‐10 FTE
Haunani Henry
Cambra mentioned that PIA is already contracted to do laundry service for the facilities.
Warehouse: AGV "tote" delivery from central D&T/CUP/Warehouse
Information Technology/Enterprise content management, records storage. ** MUST HAVE FOR TELEMEDICINE TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
Design best practices to increase and support recruitment, retention & satisfaction.
8 Big Ideas
38 Rapid Response
Not enough information
See David Noronha
Min. Energy
Y
11
0‐10K SF
N/A
$0‐5M
Low* More information required
Zero ‐ SourceCorp staff will become scanners
Terry Hill review
‐‐
4
<LOW, $0‐10K>
N/A
<LOW, $0‐5M>
MED (3‐10%)
N/A
REALITY CHECK: Linked to Staffing IEQ, reactivity cost.
Y
28
High
Delete construction of 1 site.
1: $336M 2: $434M
$335M Program Savings
Reduce site driven staffing. Reduce custody staff 400 FTEs.
Make a High Acuity site with traditional bed tower
N
N/A
LOW
TBD
MED
MED (11‐35 FTE)
Reduce EOP bed count by 600
N
$90,000/per bed
Conflicts with Receiver's Program
Reduce % of private rooms. Support direct supervisions. Number of rooms that drop. Analysis get to 25 ‐ what is safety analysis.
Tom Felker
Catherine Knox
BIG IDEAS DROPPED FROM CONSIDERATION
11/13/2013
11/13/13
Minimize private rooms in SGP.
N
17
3,000SF
N/A
$1.7M
N/A
Create a twin site
Y
3
High
High
1: $260M 2: $530M
$37M Prototype
N/A
40
May be resource ted.
20
12/3/2013
The Three Sets
The Whole Enchilada
1. Consolidate 7 to 6 sites,
with 1:80 ratio.
2. Reduction of GSF to 6.0A
3. Reduce program GSF an
additional 10%.
4. Maximize Regionalization /
Call Center
5. Benchmarking / Lean /
Productivity Metrics
6. Use modular/prefabricated
structures for Housing &
Cluster Supports
7. Modular meal service/Pretray entire system/pre-packed
convenience foods
Safe Set
180
190
35
40
additional 10%.
26
30
1.4
2.1
5.6
12
na
7
18
na
8. Outsourcing: Meals
10
10
provided by vendor.
TOTAL BIG IDEAS: 270.0 297.1
TOTAL RAPID RESPONSE:
Making 7 Work
4. Maximize Regionalization /
Call Center
1. Consolidate 7 to 6 sites,
with 1:80 ratio.
additional 10%.
5. Benchmarking / Lean /
Productivity Metrics
180
190
35
40
26
30
5.6
7
Cluster Supports
12
18
TOTAL BIG IDEAS: 258.6 285.0
27.77 53.77
TOTAL: 297.8 350.9
11/13/2013
27.77 53.77
TOTAL: 286.4 338.8
5.
Benchmarking/Lean/Producti
vity Metrics
Cluster Supports
7. Modular meal service/Pretray entire system/pre-packed
convenience foods
8. Outsourcing: Meals
provided by vendor.
TOTAL BIG IDEAS:
35
40
26
30
1.4
2.1
5.6
7
12
18
na
na
10
10
90.0 107.1
27.77 53.77
TOTAL: 117.8 160.9
Target: $123M
41
Knowledge Capture
11/13/2013
11/13/13
42
21
12/3/2013
Realtime Metrics
11/13/13
11/13/2013
43
11/13/2013
44
22
11/13/13
12/3/2013
11/13/2013
45
11/13/2013
46
23
11/13/13
12/3/2013
11/13/2013
47
11/13/2013
48
24
12/3/2013
5 Whys
PDCA
Standardization
Expert
Workforce
Visionary
Leader
Last
Planner
Knowledge
Based
Design
Process
Design
Set Based
Design
Site Visit /
S.M.E
Responsibility
Base Planning
& Control
Target
Value
Design
A3’s
11/13/2013
CBA
49
Integration
11/13/2013
11/13/13
50
25
12/3/2013
Goal – Exchange ideas and
processes to understand
•Breadth of Big Ideas
•Connections to COS / Metrics
•Research to quantify impacts to above
11/13/2013
51
Goal – Distill knowledgebase
•Rather than expose all teams to all thinking
•Capture essence effectively
•Share essence – may groups asking for interaction
11/13/2013
11/13/13
52
26
12/3/2013
What to look for -- synergy
•Opportunistic --how you can benefit
•Supportive -- how you can solve roadblocks
•National Geographic Video
11/13/2013
53
What to look for – ideas / techniques
•Learn from each other
•Poach the good stuff!
•Have fun
11/13/2013
11/13/13
54
27
12/3/2013
XX-Current to Future State
Future State
– xx
Current State
– xx
11/13/2013
55
#1 Research & Analysis
Research
– xx
Analysis
– xx
11/13/2013
11/13/13
56
28
12/3/2013
#1
People
– xx
Process
– xx
– Standardized & reduced locations/point-of-service delivery
Space
– xx
Equipment
• xx
11/13/2013
57
#1 - Assumptions / Next Steps
Scope
• xx
Schedule
• xx
Costs
– xx
Staffing
– xx
11/13/2013
11/13/13
58
29

Target Value Design - Lean Construction Institute

Transcription

Similar documents

Industry Day Event Friday, August 5th, 2016 SDSU Parma Payne

monroe crossing is a 396000 square feet regional mall

planning stations

2012 Calendar - Carolinas - Mercedes

CIO Update

Clicks Clubcard - Picture Hanging Services

CI Learning Network Newsletter

gokaldas exports 1 - TBM Consulting Group

Greenville Heritage FCU News

Give Carolinas (Spring 2014) - Carolinas HealthCare Foundation

Give Carolinas (Summer 2014) - Carolinas HealthCare Foundation

Untitled - Collège LaSalle

The Elsie Item