Obtain Permit 3 Weeks, Prepare Roads 6 Weeks, Start Resurfac

Obtain Permit3 Weeksprepare Roads6 Weeksstartresurface Road4 Weekroads

Obtain permit 3 weeks Prepare Roads 6 weeks Start Resurface Road 4 week Roadside Evaluate 2 weeks Hire temp resurfacing crew 2 weeks Critical path in red… Activity Normal Time Crash Time Normal Cost Crash Cost Crash Cost/Week Final Cost A Obtain permits 3 weeks 2 weeks $20,000 $32,000 $16,000 B Evaluate Road 2 weeks 1 week $10,000 $12,000 $12,000 C Prepare Road 6 weeks 4 weeks $100,000 $120,000 $30,000 D Hire temp resurfacing crew 2 weeks 1 week $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 E Resurface road 4 weeks 2 weeks $200,000 $250,000 $50,000 Total 17 weeks 10 weeks $350,000 $439,000 $432,000

Paper For Above instruction

The project schedule outlined involves multiple activities with defined normal durations and potential crash durations aimed at expediting completion. The key focus is to analyze the crash costs, determine the optimal crashing sequence to reduce overall project duration cost-effectively, and evaluate the impact of crashing on project delivery within a constrained timeline. This comprehensive analysis begins with calculating the crash cost per week for each activity, develops an optimal crashing plan based on critical path priorities, and culminates in recommending the most financially prudent approach to meet project deadlines.

Calculating Crash Cost Per Week for Each Activity

Crash cost per week is an essential metric for determining the most cost-effective activities to crash. It is calculated by dividing the difference between the crash cost and normal cost by the number of weeks saved through crashing. The calculations for each activity are as follows:

  • Activity A (Obtain permits): Crash cost difference = $32,000 - $20,000 = $12,000; Weeks saved = 1 week; Crash cost per week = $12,000 / 1 = $12,000.
  • Activity B (Evaluate Road): Crash cost difference = $12,000 - $10,000 = $2,000; Weeks saved = 1 week; Crash cost per week = $2,000 / 1 = $2,000.
  • Activity C (Prepare Road): Crash cost difference = $120,000 - $100,000 = $20,000; Weeks saved = 2 weeks; Crash cost per week = $20,000 / 2 = $10,000.
  • Activity D (Hire temp resurfacing crew): Crash cost difference = $25,000 - $20,000 = $5,000; Weeks saved = 1 week; Crash cost per week = $5,000 / 1 = $5,000.
  • Activity E (Resurface road): Crash cost difference = $250,000 - $200,000 = $50,000; Weeks saved = 2 weeks; Crash cost per week = $50,000 / 2 = $25,000.

Sequence of Crashing Decisions to Minimize Total Cost

To reduce the project duration from 13 weeks to the targeted 9 weeks, the most cost-effective activities should be crashed first based on their crash cost per week, focusing on activities on the critical path, which predominantly involves activities A, C, and E. The crashing sequence proceeds as follows:

  1. Crashing Activity B (Evaluate Road): With the lowest crash cost per week ($2,000), crash B from 2 weeks to 1 week.
  2. Crashing Activity D (Hire temp crew): Next, crash D from 2 weeks to 1 week at $5,000.
  3. Crashing Activity C (Prepare Road): Proceed to crash C from 6 weeks to 4 weeks at $10,000 per week.
  4. Crashing Activity E (Resurface Road): Finally, crash E from 4 weeks to 2 weeks costing $25,000 per week.

Crashing all these activities reduces the total project duration to approximately 8 weeks at a total crash cost of $432,000, which is within the 9-week deadline.

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Final Cost Estimation

The total normal cost sums up to $350,000. The total crash cost, after implementing the above crashing sequence, is approximately $432,000, representing an additional $82,000 expense. It’s important to note that this sum does not account for penalties or penalties for delays, which could further influence the total project cost. Given the project needs to be completed by the third week of September, initiating crashing in early July to meet this deadline is vital. The approach minimizes costs while achieving the project completion ahead of schedule.

Presentation to Ketchum City Council

When presenting options to the Ketchum City Council, transparency about costs, risks, and benefits is crucial. The presentation would include:

  • A clear explanation of the project timeline and critical path methodology, emphasizing the importance of completing activities in sequence.
  • The calculated crash costs for each activity, highlighting the most economical crashing options and their impact on project duration.
  • The final recommended crashing plan, which involves accelerating activities B, D, C, and E to achieve an 8-week schedule, thus completing before the deadline.
  • Cost implications, including an estimated total project cost of approximately $432,000, representing an increase of around $82,000 over the normal schedule.
  • An analysis of potential penalties associated with project delays and how the crashing plan mitigates these penalties.
  • A discussion of risks associated with crashing, such as resource overextension, quality issues, and logistical challenges.

The key message for the Council would be that while additional costs are inevitable to accelerate the project, these investments are justified to avoid penalties, meet community expectations, and deliver timely infrastructure improvements.

Conclusion

In conclusion, employing a cost-effective crashing strategy centered around activities with the lowest crash costs per week enables the project to be completed within the tight deadline. The critical path activities—A, C, and E—must be prioritized for crashing. The proposed approach balances cost, time, and risk, ensuring that the project is completed efficiently without exceeding budget constraints significantly. This strategy exemplifies effective project management, demonstrating how careful analysis and decision-making can optimize project outcomes under pressure.

References

  • Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
  • Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2014). Project Management: A Managerial Approach. Wiley.
  • Levine, H. (2010). Project Management for Dummies. Wiley.
  • Heldman, K. (2018). Project Management Jumpstart. Sybex.
  • PMI. (2021). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
  • Larson, E., & Gray, C. (2018). Project Management: The Managerial Process. McGraw-Hill.
  • Lock, D. (2013). Project Management. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
  • Winch, G. M. (2010). Managing Construction Projects. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2011). Project Risk Management: An Essential Guide. Wiley.
  • Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2010). Projects: Planning, Analysis, Selection, Funding, Implementation. Prentice Hall.

Related Assignments