PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Project Management (Schedule and Costs)

SPI and CPI started to be measured after February 9. The project was finalized and closed on March 31. Figure 19 displays SPI at 1.29 and CPI at 1.06. The reason why the project was finished ahead of schedule is that the team decided to finish the assembly and test the prototype earlier than planned to avoid many course deadlines together in the final weeks. The final CPI was under budget because troubleshooting was performed in fewer hours than planned and the buffer time for testing the prototype was not used. Therefore, a reduction in planned cost was achieved.

Figure 19 - EVA displaying SPI and CPI tracked weekly.

Schedule

At the beginning of the project, four milestones were set. The planning phase was finished and 3D-printed parts were validated on time. After entering the design phase, it was realized that its completion would take longer. It required the design drawings' due date to be modified. The completion of the design phase was postponed by two weeks. The last milestone was achieved on time with the prototype assembled and ready for testing on March 26.

After recreating the Gantt Chart, it can be noticed that in the first third of the project, all tasks followed strictly what was planned. However, after the design phase, almost all tasks suffered a change in the dates and duration.

At first glance, it is easily seen that the design phase and machining parts took longer. This delay forced the project to move the electrical assembly to start early.

Another considerable change was in the duration of assembly tasks and completion of the project. To recover from the above-mentioned delay, it was decided to allocate all team members to perform assembly tasks and do that concomitantly, rather than following the initial Gantt chart that had only one resource per task. Figure 20 shows the initial Gannt chart while Figure 21 shows the Gantt chart after the completion of the project with the actual date and duration changes. The initial and final Gantt charts (documents 5 and 9 respectively) can be seen in the documents and references section of this report.

CGR Solutions - Gantt Chart.pdf

Figure 20 - Initial Gantt chart.

CGR Solutions - Gantt Chart Final.pdf

Figure 21 - Final Gantt chart.

In the first two weeks, the project was slightly behind schedule due to design tasks taking longer to be finished. During reading week, the team was able to anticipate the purchasing phase and experience for the first time being ahead of schedule.

The poorest estimation regarding the schedule was made for the machining parts task. Initially, one week was allocated for the fabrication. However, it took four weeks to finish this task. The effects on SPI can be seen in the first weeks of March, while the project was behind schedule. It did not fall below SPI lower limits because some future tasks were anticipated.

A decision was made close to the end of the project when the team decided to focus on the project for three days and finish it earlier than planned to avoid having multiple deadlines from other courses together.

Cost

As shown in Figure 22, the project budget was initially set at $4,582.83. At the end of the project, the total cost of materials and labor amounted to $4,311.23 as shown in Figure 23. CGR Solutions aimed to produce a reasonable and durable automated trash rack prototype. The initial and final budget (documents 6 and 10 respectively) can be seen in the documents and references section of this report.

CGR Solutions - Budget.pdf

Figure 22 - Initial budget.

CGR Solutions - Budget Final.pdf

Figure 23 - Final budget.

Before achieving the objective, the team faced challenges during the fabrication phase. It required three sessions to complete all the parts for fabrication which significantly strained the budget. As shown in Figure 19, more details can be seen on the EVA (document 11) in the documents and reference section. However, during the assembly phase, the team demonstrated skill and completed the task ahead of schedule.

Only minimal troubleshooting was necessary due to the precision of the electrical and mechanical designs, which helped compensate for the costs incurred during the previous phase. Moreover, CGR Solutions utilized electrical components from the electromechanical student kit to replace any defective parts needed, ensuring that the project remained within budget throughout its duration.

The team consists of three members, and tasks were divided among them to optimize time efficiency. Whenever one member finished their tasks ahead of time, they would assist other members to minimize labor costs. Additionally, the team decided to exclude certain accessories to avoid additional expenses.

As shown in Figure 19, the Cost Performance Index (CPI) at the end of the project was 1.06. The team managed to complete the project under budget primarily because the assembly of the automated trash rack was completed in less time than anticipated.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse