Date post: | 01-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ulric-logan |
View: | 17 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Web-based Collaborative Project Management
ESM 684
Engineering Management Project
University of Alaska Fairbanks
ESM 684 Project Team
• Evan Griffith, P.E. Civil Design EngineerPDC, Inc. Consulting Engineers
• Galen Johnson, P.E. Construction Project Manager GHEMM Company, Inc.
• Rod Stanton, P.E. Construction Project Manager Richard Stanton Construction, Inc.
• Mark Wilkinson, Construction EngineerRockwell Engineering & Construction Services, Inc.
Hypothesis 1
Web-based collaborative project management will improve planning, design and construction performance, efficiency and organization – resulting in reduced construction and administration costs.
Hypothesis 2
Web-based collaborative project management is only applicable to very large (multi-million dollar) projects
Hypothesis 3
Web-based collaborative project management will not work in Alaska due to the remoteness of many project sites.
Associated General ContractorsHouston & Dallas/Ft Worth Chapters
Web-enabled Project Management “Shootout”
Viecom Bidcom ProjectCenter
ProjectWorkspace ProjectNet FirstLine
Constructware TeamBuilder AdvantageWare
IronSpire VISTA 2000 Project Talk
PrimeContract ProjectGrid ProjectSolve
Struxicon Paragon FYI
Constructware
Meridian
Experience “Relativity”
Perspective
Tradition?
Pre-Planning
Design Advances
Builder Selected
Construction
Commences
RFP
Request For
Proposal
Change Order
Submittal Summary
Submittal Register
DC/VR
DesignClarificationVerification
Request
RFI
Requestfor
Information
RFI Tracking Log
Schedule of Values
Construction Progress Schedule
SubstitutionRequest
DailyField
Report
JobsiteSafetyReview
Checklist
“Traditional Chaos”
Internet-Based?
Paper-Based?
METHODS
Web Search
Contacted Vendors
User Survey
Literature Review
And back again
How Does it Work?
RESULTS
• Rapidly Changing State of Practice
• ASP’s versus Client-Server
• Collaborative Project Management is here to stay (Like it or Not!)
RESULTS
• Rapidly Changing State of Practice– Much of the reported research has already been
surpassed.– Product reviews are not relevant to what is
available today.– Many of the vendors no longer exist
• ASP’s versus Client-Server• Collaborative Project Management is here to
stay (Like it or Not!)
ASP’S versus Client-Server
• ASP = Application Service Provider. – Program and data are hosted by a third party (generally
the program developer)
– Users access the program and data through a web browser
• Client-Server.– Program and data are hosted on your own server.
– Users access the program and data through a web browser
ASP’s versus Client-Server
– Cost• Development and Distribution• Support for older versions
– Time to Market• Testing• Individual Enhancements vs Patches
– Security• Resources• Design
– Confidence• What if ASP fails?• Future Access?
RESULTS
• Rapidly Changing State of Practice
• ASP’s versus Client-Server
• Collaborative Project Management is here to stay (Like it or Not!)– Literature and survey results
overwhelmingly positive.– Competition will eventually force the issue.
Total Survey Respondents
Private Companies Public Owners20 15
400+ Potential users contacted
Most public owners said they did not currently use products
Respondents typically did not answer all questions
Products Used and Number Who Use Each
Private Companies Public Owners
Constructware 11 3
Meridian 10 0
Other 2 2
Question 1
Why did you start using the software? (advantageous on proposals, potential cost savings, client driven, etc.) What is/was your companies goal for implementing the software?
Private Companies
Time/Cost Saving 6
Organization/ Document Control 15
Hold Sub's Accountable 1
Extra Selling Point 2
Public Owners
Online Collaboration Function 2
Question 2
Why did you select this software?
Private Companies
Selected ConstructwareModules 1Software Maker Stability 2Most Efficient/Advanced 3Best Overall Comparison 3Reputation 1 Worked on initial software development 1
Private Companies
Selected Meridian
Better Modules 2
Most Efficient/Advanced 4
Reputation 1
Public Owners
No specific answers
Question 3
How long has your company been using the software?
Private Companies
Less than 1 Year 3
1 to 2 Years 9
Greater than 2 Years 3
Public Owners
Less than 1 Year 2
1 to 2 Years
Greater than 2 Years
Question 4
What specifically do you use the software for and how often? (in-house organization, document exchange, etc.)
Private Companies
Document Management 11
General Communications 4
Public Owners
Document Management 2
General Communications 2
Question 5
Who has access to the database? (Client, Subcontractors, Designers, End Users, Permitting Agencies, Public, etc.)
Private Companies
Owner 7
Project Team 13
Subcontractors 10
Anybody Needing Info 2
Public Owners
Project Team 2
Subcontractors 2
Question 6
What were the costs associated with implementing the software? (purchase or lease price, employee training, equipment, etc.)
Private Companies
$500 to $10,000
$10,000 to $50,000 1
$50,000 to $100,000
Greater Than $100,000 2
Not Sure or Not Specific 10 generally varies with seats
Public Owners
$500 to $10,000$10,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $100,000Greater Than $100,000Not Sure or Not Specific 2
generally varies with seats
Question 7
On what types of projects do you use this software? What are the sizes of these projects?
Private Company Project Types
Commercial 7
Government 4
Depends on Complexity 1
Private Company Project Sizes
All Project Sizes 5
$100,000 and Up 1
$1,000,000 and Up 6
Large 1
Public Owner Project Sizes
$1,000,000 and Up 2 Note: Meridian users claimed product is better for bigger
projects. Constructware users claimed product is better for a wide project size range.
Question 8
On how many projects have you used this software?
Private Companies
1 to 9 8
10 to 100 4
Greater Than 100 2
Public Owners
1 to 9 2
Question 9
What is your estimate of your companies increase in performance upon utilizing this software?
Private Companies
Decrease 1
10% to 20% 4
Greater Than 20% 1
Noticeable increase but no percentage given 3
Not Sure 4
Public Owners
Noticeable increase but no percentage given 2
Question 10
What types/sizes of projects do you believe this software is suited for?
Private Companies
Medium 1
Large 1
Any 8
Depends on Collaboration Needs 1
None 1
Public Owners
Depends on Collaboration Needs 2
Note: No difference between product type.
Question 11
Did the software meet your needs?
Private Companies
Yes 9
No 2
Yes, but With Further Changes 4
Public Owners
Yes, but With Further Changes 2
Question 12
Are there any areas of improvements you would recommend? Other comments?
Conclusions
Mostly Used By Private Companies
Used Primarily For Documentation & Collaboration
Project Team Has Primary Access
Usable On Small And Large Projects
Software Increases Efficiency
MERIDIAN PROJECT SYSTEMS
COMPANY BACKGROUND
• MPS was founded in 1993.
• Meridian Project Systems is a software and application service provider specializing in comprehensive project management tools.
• MPS debuted on Inc magazine's INC 500 as the 56th fastest growing company in the United States in 2000.
• MPS serves 70,000+ customers.
• MPS solutions are offered via traditional software (self-hosted) or as an ASP subscription (hosted).
• MPS is headquartered in Folsom, Calif., with its European base in Düsseldorf, Germany; and research and development centers in Vancouver, British Columbia; and St. Petersburg, Russia.
MERIDIAN PROJECT SYSTEMSCOLLABORATION FLOW CHART
PROLOG PROJECT PACK(SELF-HOSTED SOLUTION)
• Prolog ManagerAutomation of everyday project management and tracking from design to close-out.
• Prolog WebsiteConnects the project team to one another and to the database information, images, and documents.
• Prolog SchedulerComplete task and resource management in a collaborative, web-based system designed for the enterprise. Integrates with Microsoft Project, Primavera Project Planner and Suretrak Project Manager. Prolog Scheduler does not integrate with Prolog Manager, but integration is in MPS’s future plans.
• Prolog ExecutiveAggregates information from multiple project databases into a global database. For analysis across the enterprise to identify trends.
• Prolog PocketIntegrates Prolog Manager with PDAs for quick transfer of data collected in the field.
PROLOG PROJECT PACK SOFTWARE COSTS
Software Price
Prolog Manager $2,495
Prolog Website $495 Client, $1,995 Server
Prolog Scheduler $5,000 per Server License, $495 Project Manager User License, $249 per Contributor User License
Prolog Executive $2,495
Prolog Pocket $299
PROJECTTALK PRICING SCHEDULE
Features
Basic Membership
Project Stakeholders,
Interested Parties
Collaboration Membership
Owner, Architect,
Engineer,
Subcontractor
Project Management Membership
General Contractor,
Construction Manager
Unlimited Projects
Project Websites
Personal Action Item Manager
Collaboration
Document Control
Reports
Field Administration
150 mb of disk space
Cost Control (Read Only)
Purchasing (Read Only)
Project Setup/Admin
Annual Rate Per User (Prepaid)
Free $ 540 $ 1,620
*Monthly Rate Per User
Free $ 50 $ 150
Collaborative Project Management will increase
• $3,200,000,000,000/year
Collaborative Project Management will increase
• Paperwork is overwhelming design and construction professionals
Collaborative Project Management will increase
• Outdated info causes 35% of all mistakes
Collaborative Project Management will increase
• A project is a sinkhole…
Collaborative Project Management will increase
POTENTIAL SAVINGS• When in the Project is Collaboration
Implemented?– @ Construction Phase
• 1-10% of design costs
– @ Earliest Design Stages (better design)• 60-70% of Construction Administration• 20% of total Project Time and Cost
(Laiserin, 2001)
Collaborative Project Management will increase
Eventually all members of the AEC industry will use Collaborative Project
Management
Current Research
• Intelligent Agents
• Artificial Intelligence
Star Trek
BACK TO EARTH
Web-based collaborative project management will
improve planning, design and construction performance,
efficiency and organization – resulting in reduced
construction and administration costs.
TRUE
Web-based collaborative project management is only
applicable to very large (multi-million dollar) projects.
Partially True
Web-based collaborative project management will not
work well in Alaska due to the remoteness of many project
sites.
TRUE
• Even in areas that we consider, in-town, there is no broadband access.
• Sattelite leasing and hook-up is $45,000 plus $1,000/mo
• Microwave, if available, is $30,000 plus $1,000/mo
TRUE
FALSE
• Progress strikes again.
• Satellite link for $2,500 setup and $900/mo.
WHAT NOW??
• Realistic Budget• Pick Winners• Target Everyone• Demonstrate
Commitment