Study Guide Flashcards
Requirements of Pull
Lead time must be less than the look-ahead window (Slide 31).
Strategies to achieve pull:
[1] Decrease supplier’s lead time.
[2] Increase reliable look-ahead window (Slide 31).
Supported by:
[1] Reliable Short-term Planning (RSP).
[2] Adaptive Production Schedule (APS).
[3] Supply Chain Coordination (Slide 30).
Kanban - Type 1 (General Definition)
A replenishment system designed to control production quantities. Parts are taken and replenished only when needed and in the right amount (Slide 21).
Prevents overproduction while maintaining a tightly-bound inventory between supplier and customer processes (Slide 25).
Kanban - Type 2 (Specific Strategy for Bulk Materials)
Applied to bulk materials (purchased in uniform lots, no shop drawings required).
Uses a pull system with a safety level of inventory to trigger replenishment based on system status (Slides 20, 21, 22).
Example: Parts replenished only when consumed, avoiding excess stock (Slide 21).
Typical Attributes of Current Practices - Rebar Supply Chain
[a] Select a low-bid supplier.
[b] Order in bulk (e.g., 20-day supply).
[c] Supplier not involved in contractor’s schedule.
[d] Inventory on-site for 20-30 days (Slide 5).
Typical Attributes of Current Practices - Façade Supply Chain
[a] Select a low-bid supplier.
[b] Supplier not involved in contractor’s schedule.
[c] Contractor frequently changes delivery schedule.
[d] Supplier holds excessive inventory (Slide 6).
TVD - Setting/Process
Setting:
Allowable Costs set by the owner; Target Costs must be less than Allowable Costs (Slide 17).
Contractors involved early to determine Target Price (e.g., Avg % Discount Method: Market Avg Cost $400/SQ → Target Cost $360/SQ with 10% discount) (Slide 22).
Process:
Phase 1: Business Case Development - Identify needs, set financial parameters (Expected vs. Allowable Costs) (Slide 20).
Phase 2: Validation - Schematic design, refine budget/schedule (Refined Expected vs. Allowable Costs) (Slide 20).
Phase 3: Target Value Design - Set Target Costs, allocate to clusters (e.g., C+E+S), develop design, adjust budgets (Slide 21).
TVD - Integrated Design + VE + Set-Based Design + Collocation
Integrated Design:
Required for TVD (Slide 15). All actors cooperate across disciplines, make joint decisions early (Slide 7). Discuss tradeoffs (e.g., energy, daylighting) and lifecycle impacts (Slide 8).
Value Engineering (VE):
Tool in Phase 3 to optimize design within Target Costs (Slide 21).
Set-Based Design:
Tool in Phase 3 to explore design alternatives before finalizing (Slide 21).
Collocation:
Work in pairs or groups face-to-face (not alone in separate rooms) to define issues and make decisions (Slide 18). Used in Phase 3 (Slide 21).
CBA - Process
Identify Alternatives (e.g., Car A, B, C) (Slide 31).
Define Factors for comparison (e.g., passengers, MPG) (Slide 31).
Set Criteria (Must/Want conditions, e.g., min. 6 passengers) (Slide 36).
List Attributes for each alternative (e.g., Car A: 4 passengers) (Slide 37).
Determine Advantages (e.g., Car C: +3 passengers) (Slide 40).
Assign Importance scores to advantages (e.g., +3 passengers = 40) (Slide 47).
Calculate Total Importance (e.g., Car B: 160) (Slide 48).
Consider Cost last (e.g., Car B: $25,000) to finalize decision (Slide 49).
IPD Differences vs. Design-Build (DB)
DB: Single contract for owner, coordinates design/construction, fast-tracking, best-value selection (Slide 7).
IPD Differences:
Broader team integration (includes all players, e.g., major subs) vs. DB’s focus on designer-contractor coordination (Slide 17).
Early involvement in Schematic Design (SD) vs. DB’s later contractor engagement (Slide 17).
Shared risk/reward (EMP, Shared Pool) vs. DB’s single responsibility (Slides 18-19).
Higher collaboration (Level 2 in DB vs. IPD’s full integration) (Slide 10).
Lean/BIM emphasis for optimization vs. DB’s communication focus (Slides 25, 44).
IPD Differences vs. CM @ Risk (CMAR)
CMAR: Two-staged (preconstruction + GMP construction), fast track, popular for commercial projects (Slide 8).
IPD Differences:
Full team integration (all players early) vs. CMAR’s GC/CM-led preconstruction (Slide 17).
Starts in SD vs. CMAR’s design phase start (Slide 17).
Shared risk/reward (EMP/Shared Pool) vs. CMAR’s GMP with separate contracts (Slides 18-19).
Higher collaboration (Level 1 in CMAR vs. IPD’s full integration) (Slide 10).
Lean tools (e.g., Last Planner, Pull) and BIM vs. CMAR’s focus on fast-tracking (Slide 37).
IPD Attributes (Including Pain/Gain Sharing)
General Attributes:
Early involvement of specialty contractors (Slide 18).
Aligns interests for optimal project performance (Slide 16).
Uses QBS or Best Value with Fee selection (Slide 18).
Information sharing (e.g., BIM) (Slide 17).
Pain/Gain Sharing:
Contracts: IFOA or Consensus Doc 300 (Slide 19).
EMP (Estimated Max Price) or GMP with Shared At-Risk Pool (Contingency + GOH + Profits) (Slides 19-20).
Shared risk/reward: “Your fault is our fault” (Slide 21).
Example: $40M pool for $400M project, consumed as contingency, distributed among team (Slide 22).
IPD Process
Planning & Selection:
Business case (goals, criteria, allowable costs).
Two-phased selection via SOQ (technical + cultural alignment) (Slide 31).
Validation:
Go/No-Go feasibility.
Compare Expected Cost vs. Allowable Cost (approve, modify, or drop).
Conceptual schedule, some schematic design (Slide 33).
Design (TVD):
Set Target Cost, aggressive VE, collocation, set EMP at 70-75% DD (Slides 34-35).
Construction:
Fast track, Last Planner System, BIM, Lean Supply Chain (Pull), Shared Pool control, minimal RFIs/Change Orders (Slide 37).
