Are solar panels a sound investment? A risk analysis case study

Friday, August 27, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
The UK's new coalition government has said that, as part of its 'Green Deal', it will encourage home energy efficiency improvements paid for by savings from energy bills. It seems likely that, in the year that energy regulator Ofgem warned of 20 percent electricity price hikes by 2020, this initiative will include solar panel technology

Currently the UK still lags behind many other countries in Europe and the rest of the world when it comes to harnessing solar power. Not only do we have less hours of sunshine than many regions, but there is a lack of clarity as to the 'payback' time when it comes to users seeing a return on investment.

This is where Palisade customer, the California-based Tioga Energy, makes an interesting case study. Whilst it may seem unfair to compare the UK with the west coast of America when talking about solar-related matters, the sunnier climate does not reduce the need to prove ROI for customers with solar energy agreements.

Tioga Energy provides project financing through its solar Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), and maintains and operates solar systems on behalf of its customers. Tioga’s offering delivers predictably priced power and enables organisations to to both 'green' their operations and reduce energy costs. To illustrate the benefits of solar, estimating future electricity prices and making comparisons by showing the savings from a new solar system, Tioga enlisted the help of @RISK for risk analysis solutions.

To forecast possible price increases, Tioga Energy inputs California's historical electricity rate data into a quantitative risk analysis model developed using @RISK. This generates a probability distribution for electricity rate rises over the 20-year PPA period, which shows that there is a 25 percent likelihood that price increases will be less than 4.8 percent, and a 25 percent chance that rate rises would be more than 8.7 percent.

The @RISK risk analysis model therefore helps Tioga Energy evaluate the likelihood that a customer will save money for a variety of PPA scenarios (i.e. the rate at which electricity would initially be charged and the amount by which it would then increase each year). It also calculates the magnitude of savings for the different combinations of first year costs and subsequent rises. Consumers are therefore able to better understand the pricing and make an informed decision about whether to sign up for a PPA.

Using historical data and @RISK's risk modelling software capacity, Tioga offers consumers a robust view of the potential benefits of a solar PPA. This enables them to hedge against rising electricity rates, as well as feel confident that they are playing a part in tackling global warming.

» Read the Tioga Energy case study

Craig Ferri
EMEA Managing Director of Risk & Decision Analysis

@RISK Quick Tips: Event and Operational Risk Analysis

Tuesday, August 24, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
@RISK risk analysis software using Monte Carlo simulation is used for a wide variety of applications. In this model, we have an example of a general usage to address Operational Risk.

In many circumstances one wishes to calculate the aggregate impact of many possible yes/no type events. For example, it is often important to answer questions such as "What is the loss amount that will not be exceeded in 95% of cases?" @RISK simulation can be used to answer such questions.

» Download the example: EventandOperationalRisks.xls

Oops! Didn’t see that coming! Part 4

Monday, August 9, 2010 by Steve Hunt

This is the conclusion of Dave Roy’s guest blog, we hope you have found them informative. Again, Dave comes to us from SSPI, Six Sigma Professionals, Inc., and taught Jack Welch and his entire staff their Six Sigma Green Belt training. Also, look for Dave’s free live webcast on August 19th, Assessing your New Product, Process or Service Introduction Methodology: Is yours premier? Does it enable Six Sigma performance?



Oops! Didn’t see that coming! Part 4
 

 

As a continuation from the July blog, we are now concluding with the “Optimize” and “Validate” phases of the ICOV (Identify-Conceptualize-Optimize-Validate) framework of a rigorous new design process as explained in “Services Design for Six Sigma – A Roadmap for Excellence”.

 

These phases are important because it allows time and methodology to optimize the design, develop all of the detailed documentation, verify performance and capability under operating conditions and manage an orderly transition to the new state.

 

The Optimize phase consists of a single stage (Design Optimization) and associated Tollgate 5 to validate successful completion of the requirements. 

 

The Design Optimization stage involves completing all of the detailed design documentation, building Prototypes of the design, simulating/analyzing Process Capability, preparing all Control Plans and updating the Design and Process Scorecards.

 

Tollgate 5 Exit Criteria:

o    Agreement that functionality and performance meet the customers’ and business requirements under the intended operating conditions.

o    Approval to proceed with the Validate stage.

 

Formal tools which can be used in this phase are Design Scorecard, Process Management, Mistake Proofing, Simulation, Change Management, Control Plans, Reliability and Robustness.

 

The Validate phase consists of two stages (Verification and Launch Readiness) and associated Tollgates (6 and 7) to validate successful completion of the requirements. 

 

The Verification stage involves developing Pilot plans, Piloting the new design and process and analyzing and making adjustments to achieve the desired functionality and performance under operating conditions.

 

Tollgate 6 Exit Criteria:

o    Agreement that functionality and performance from the pilot meet the customers’ and business requirements under the intended operating conditions.

o    Approval to proceed with the Launch Readiness stage.

 

Formal tools which can be used in this phase are Design Scorecard, Process Management, Mistake Proofing, Change Management, Control Plans, Statistical Process Control (SPC), and Confidence Analysis.

 

The Launch Readiness stage involves developing Pilot plans, Piloting the new design and process and analyzing and making adjustments to achieve the desired functionality and performance under operating conditions.

 

Tollgate 7 Exit Criteria:

o    Agreement that transition plans and training plans have been developed and are executable.

o    Approval to proceed with the Production stage.

 

Formal tools which can be used in this phase are Transition Plans, Training Plans, Process management, Change Management and Control Plans.

 

Following the ICOV model we have now used a formal methodology that allows us to validate performance at progressive economical stages and have improved the ability to detect unknown risks thus avoiding the Oops! Didn’t see that coming!. It should be mentioned that the methodology should be flexible and scalable to adjust for level of invention and risk. A brand new invention (Research & Development) that has never been deployed in similar conditions is much different than implementing a known solution (Application Engineering) under new conditions.

 » Part 1
 » Part 2
 » Part 3
 

 

 

BIO:

 

David Roy is an integral part of the Six Sigma community. He taught GE’s Jack Welch and entire staff Six Sigma, as well as served as Senior Vice President of Textron Six Sigma. He is a Certified GE Master Black Belt, was instrumental in developing GE’s DMADV (DFSS) methodology, and has taught 3 waves of DFSS Black Belts. David holds an BS in Mechanical Engineering from The University of New Hampshire. He is also the co-author “Services Design for Six Sigma – A Roadmap for Excellence”

 

Prediction Markets

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 by Holly Bailey
Although they've been around for the last 20 years or so, prediction markets have begun to make news for their application in business operations. Heralded early on in books like James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds, prediction markets are a fascinating alternative to traditional forecasting methods, such Monte Carlo simulation, which extrapolate future events from past patterns.  Essentially a betting exchange where participants stake something on the accuracy of the information they offer up, a prediction market is a way of capturing emerging patterns. 
 
Prediction markets can be public or closed private exchanges, as in most business applications. Here's how it might work: a business sets up an online portal to gather intelligence from its employees on such issues as scheduling or production costs.  Each employee has a limited number of points to wager with the information he or she offers, and these points are value-at-risk, which means that an employee is likely to offer only information that is accurate enough to be worth the points. 
 
Why bother to play at all?  Darwinian competition.  With each winning piece of information, the participant gains collective respect.  Maybe he or she advances in rank on a leader board or maybe the company honors its top participants in a ceremony. 
 
While the accuracy of prediction markets is still a topic of some fairly warm debate in applied mathematics, a number of risk analysis services are concentrating their solution portfolios on predictive markets.  

Tackling the energy crisis by managing demand, using risk modeling software

Thursday, July 29, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
One of the side-effects of the recession appeared to be a reduction in the demand for electricity as businesses and consumers alike looked to make savings on their outgoings. However, economic recovery seems to render this trend as temporary, meaning that the global need to tackle energy-consumption is as pressing as ever.

BC Hydro, Canada's third largest electrical utility provides an interesting case study in how to  ascertain the most effective ways to tackle the gap between supply and demand of electricity in British Columbia. Trends such as an expanding population growth, and the increase in energy usage per customer, have led to a rise in the demand for electricity across the region. By legislation, BC Hydro must aim to meet these energy needs through implementing cost-effective energy conservation approaches before it can turn to increasing the supply. 

The company has set itself one of the most aggressive targets in North America, with a plan to meet almost 75 percent of its incremental load through Demand Side Management (DSM) over the next 20 years. DSM projects include compact fluorescent light promotions; subsidies for energy efficient appliances; variable speed motor promotions (for home furnaces); and promotional activity aimed at motivating customers to use less energy.

BC Hydro uses @RISK risk analysis software to measure the uncertainty around its energy conservation efforts, both at the project stage and at a higher portfolio level. Around 60 projects were analysed on a case-by-case basis, and a probability distribution around the forecast outcome was developed. @RISK helps BC Hydro to capture the level of uncertainty of the estimated savings for each individual DSM venture.

In recognition that projects do not operate in isolation, BC Hydro also uses @RISK to explore the interrelationships between key uncertainties: the participation and savings per participant, and the participation across projects. The analysis showed that if a 'conservation culture' was developed in the province, it would result in an increase in energy savings across all programmes. However, it also illustrated that, if this culture failed to materialise, the performance of all programmes will be dragged down.

Exploring uncertainty using @RISK allowed BC Hydro to find the best balance between the uncertainties of supply side resources and those of relying heavily on energy conservation. Employing Decision Making Under Uncertainty helps BC Hydro to meet both financial risk analysis and environmental risk analysis goals. As a result, it expects to meet the majority of its incremental load growth through conservation measures.

» Read the BC Hydro case study

Craig Ferri
EMEA Managing Director of Risk & Decision Analysis

Customised Solutions Using @RISK and VBA for Excel

Thursday, July 8, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
If you missed Palisade trainer Rishi Prabhakar's webcast "Customised Solutions Using @RISK and VBA for Excel," you can still view it in our archive.

The hour-long presentation explores the use of VBA for Microsoft Excel to control @RISK functionality, to simplify the process of risk analysis for resource-strapped businesses. Rishi explains the advantages (and limitations) of macro control for modelling and running simulations.

Simple examples are worked through to show the XDK (@RISK’s automation library) in action, from generic examples to a cost estimation model. This addresses elements of model construction, various simulation settings and finally reporting. The emphasis is on exposing the viewer to the various possibilities the XDK lends to the user rather than an in-depth VBA for Excel coding session.

Rishi Prabhakar holds a BSc in Mathematics from the University of Technology, Sydney Australia. Rishi has experience in the resources, infrastructure and primary industries, telecommunications, scientific research, banking and finance with an emphasis on operational risk.

With technical skills in the areas of modelling, simulation, statistical analysis, cost estimation, time series forecasting, customised solutions utilising VBA for Excel, and extreme value theory, Rishi has provided training and consulting services in risk and decision analysis for Palisade’s Asia Pacific office since 2005.


» Customised Solutions Using @RISK and VBA for Excel
» Webcast archive

Ensuring water supply when the heavens rarely open, using risk simulation software

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
Abu DhabiThe UK finally seems to be heading into summer after an unusually long and cold winter.  However, despite the amount of rain that falls on our 'green and pleasant land' (to the extent of major flooding on occasions), one of the anomalies of the UK weather system is that any prolonged warm period seems to be accompanied by the underlying threat of a hosepipe ban.

This is in stark contrast to many regions around the world that, despite seeing far less precipitation, manage a robust water supply.  Abu Dhabi for example has no rain for several months of the year, and relies almost completely on desalinated seawater for its potable water requirements.  The desalination process is challenging in terms of operation, costs, and environmental impact.  Whilst over-production capacity is expensive, at the other end of the scale it is essential that Abu Dhabi has sufficient water production capacity to support the Abu Dhabi government development plan (Abu Dhabi Plan 2030). 

This plan means that the Abu Dhabi Water & Electricity Company (ADWEC) is required by the Regulation and Supervision Bureau (RSB), the regulatory body of Abu Dhabi, to use a risk-based methodology to assess the water demand and required capacity.  As a result ADWEC uses @RISK risk analysis software to help it to forecast as accurately as possible the demand for water and electricity across the Emirate in order to plan for the optimum expansion as well as the efficient and effective use of water production plants.

@RISK enables ADWEC to model all feasible uncertainties in the variables that determine the quantity of water required over specific timescales, such as per capita water consumption rates and the rate of population growth.  The variables input into the @RISK risk simulation software model are based on the water demand categories such as domestic, agricultural and industrial. Factors with inherent uncertainties that affect the demand forecast outcome and must be modelled include: seasonal variation, distillers' unplanned outages, water losses, population growth rates and demand for housing.

By undertaking risk analysis of the variables involved in assessing demand and supply, ADWEC minimises the potential for water production capacity to be over or under deployed.  As a result of using @RISK to assist with its forecasting, planning and management strategies, ADWEC has been able to consistently meet with almost complete accuracy the Abu Dhabi Emirate water demand forecasts.

A useful lesson...

» Read the full ADWEC case study

Craig Ferri
EMEA Managing Director of Risk & Decision Analysis

@RISK Quick Tips: Insurance Claims with RiskCompound Cell Referencing.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
Modeling Uncertain Number of Events, Each with Uncertain Parameters
@RISK (risk analysis software using Monte Carlo simulation) is widely used in insurance and reinsurance for premium pricing and loss reserves modeling. A 2006 survey identified @RISK as the third most widely-used software by actuaries, after Microsoft Office and in-house actuarial tools.

@RISK's RiskCompound function allows for the sampling of frequency-severity distributions. This is often required in insurance modelling, as well as in some operations management situations. For example, to determine the total insurance claims payout, one must account for the uncertainty in both the total number of claims (frequency) and the dollar amount of each claim made (severity). 

A powerful feature of the function is that the argument that corresponds to the severity may be a reference to a cell containing a formula (rather than just a single distribution function). 

For example, one could use the function in the form RiskCompound(RiskPoisson(5), A10). The Poisson distribution would describe the frequency (occurrence) of events (e.g. an individual sample may determine that three events occur), and cell A10 would contain a formula that is separately evaluated for each of these three events (before returning the sum of these three as the sampled value of RiskCompound). 

A simple example could be A10 = RiskLognorm(10000,1000)/(1.1^RiskWeibull(2,1)), with the Weibull distribution representing the time to settlement of an insurance claim, which is used to discount the basic claim value sampled from the Lognormal distribution of severity. For example, once a claim is filed for a nominal amount, the actual payment may be delayed due to court actions or disputes, which may reduce the cost of the claim to the insurer.

» Download the model: RiskCompoundCellReferencing.xls

Oops! Didn’t see that coming! Part 2

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 by Steve Hunt

Guest blogger David Roy Six Sigma Professionals, Inc., and taught Jack Welch and his entire staff their Six Sigma Green Belt training. Dave also has a quick survey for your input on structuring DFSS training. brings us the second installment of his four-part blog. Dave comes to us from SSPI,

 

--Steve Hunt

 
Oops! Didn’t see that coming! Part 2

We’d like to ask for your guidance by completing a short marketing survey to help SSPI structure our training in a way that is most useful to our community. This 8 question survey should take less than 5 minutes, and is anonymous. Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

As a continuation from the May blog, we are now covering the “Identify” phase of the ICOV framework of a rigorous new design process.

This phase is important because it establishes the framework for the concept, establishes the level of rigor required for the project management process, estimates the development cost, collects the Customer and Business requirements and the criteria for success.

 

The level of project management needs to be flexible and scalable depending on the Level of Effort (cost) and the Level of Innovation (risk) of the new concept.

 

Surely a project that will take a month to develop and has been done elsewhere requires less rigor that a concept that will take 3 years to develop and represents a brand new invention which has never been done before.

 

The I phase consists of two Tollgates during which an objective steering committee will decide whether to refine the work in the current phase, proceed or cancel the project. 

 

Tollgate 1 Exit Criteria are:

o     Decision To Collect The Voice Of The Customer To Define Customer Needs, Wants And Delights

o     Verification adequate funding is available to define Customer Needs

o     Identification of the Tollgate Keepers1 leader & the appropriate staff

 

Tollgate 2 Exit Criteria is successful demonstration of:

o     Assessment of market opportunity

o     Command a reasonable price or be affordable

o     Commitment to development of the Conceptual Designs

o     Verification adequate funding is available to develop the Conceptual Design

o     Identification of the Gate Keepers leader (gate approver) & the appropriate staff

o     Continue flow down of CTSs to Functional Requirements

Click to Enlarge 

Formal tools which can be used in this phase are Market/Customer research tools, Product Roadmaps, Process Roadmaps, Technology Roadmaps, Multigenerational plans, Quality Functional Deployment (House of Quality).

 

Market/Customer research tools may include Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Data, Surveys, Focus Groups, Conjoint Analysis and Kano Model Analysis.

 

The next blog will cover the Conceptualize phase

 

 

 

BIO:

 

David Roy is an integral part of the Six Sigma community. He taught GE’s Jack Welch and entire staff Six Sigma, as well as served as Senior Vice President of Textron Six Sigma. He is a Certified GE Master Black Belt, was instrumental in developing GE’s DMADV (DFSS) methodology, and has taught 3 waves of DFSS Black Belts. Dave’s experience includes Product and Transactional so his examples are of interest to all. David holds an BS in Mechanical Engineering from The University of New Hampshire. He is also the co-author “Services Design for Six Sigma – A Roadmap for Excellence”

» Part 1

Free Webcast This Thursday: “DMAIC and Using a Non-Intuition Approach”

Monday, June 7, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
On Thursday, June 10, 2010, Ed Biernat will present a free live webcast entitled. "DMAIC and Using a Non-Intuition Approach"

Experience is often critical to good decision making.  It helps us see patterns and react quickly.  In that sense it is a strength.  However, if the environment changes radically, and we use the old paradigms to see the new world, bad things can happen.  The Six Sigma DMAIC process is a great tool set for helping us see the world through data and thus helps us adapt through the change.  What is needed is the addition of other tools and insights to help us interpret the analyses correctly.

In this free live webcast, we will review some of the latest research in cognitive psychology and related fields and discuss how to apply these insights into the realm of Lean Six Sigma transformation.  We will challenge the role of intuition as a primary factor in decision-making and, while not removing it entirely from the framework, look to put it into its proper place.  We will also examine some of the biases, both in the data and in our heads, that may lead good people to make bad decisions when the old rules fail to apply in the face of radical change.

» Register now (FREE)
» View archived webcasts

Another take on the BP Oil Spill

Friday, May 28, 2010 by Steve Hunt

We are pleased to introduce you to consultant and trainer Sandi Claudell, today’s featured guest blogger. Sandi is CEO of MindSpring Coaching, and has been a valued Palisade Six Sigma Partner for quite some time. She is a Six Sigma Master Black Belt (Motorola), and is a Lean Master (Toyota Motors - Japan) among other notable achievements.

--Steve Hunt


Part 1: The Platform Disaster

Much has been said about the disastrous BP oil spill in New Orleans. If we use the theory of probability and reliability then have too many different companies responsible for a very complex construction and operation added to the chance of failure.

 

There is probably a cultural issue at work where each entity wanted to give the other what they wanted to hear rather than the truth. (For historic and recent examples: NASA Challenger and recent Toyota Prius problems). When we lose sight of quality and reliability of parts, construction, maintenance, testing under ALL conditions rather than the obvious few, etc. then we run high risks of failure. When you build 100+ wells and avoided disasters  . . . perhaps people fool themselves into thinking there never WILL be a disaster. They don’t look at a model that demonstrates the longer you go without such an event (given the input factors of how each element can and will fail) the closer you come to the event we all want to avoid.

 

They may or may not have used an integrated Systems Design  . . . not simply an engineering system but the system on how individuals work together, communicate with each other, act as a conforming unit or a more self-directed autonomous unit looking for and generating solutions outside the box. A team that is innovative and willing to look at all the possibilities and create a breakthrough design that was / is more mistake proof.

 

If they had used DFSS (Design for Six Sigma) then their designs would be more robust taking into consideration all the necessary safety precautions for human life as well as immediate response to a potential failure. As part of DFSS we use a statistical tool call Design of Experiments (Strategy of Formulations, Central Composites, etc.) where we can try very complex interactions (factors) with minimal effort / cost and maximum statistical accuracy. DoE creates prediction equations that allow us to model and ask questions of what would happen under different conditions. More importantly we can look at many different quality metrics (responses, outcomes, etc.) with the same experimental trial. If we replicate the test then we can even forecast what elements cause variation (very hard to detect in highly complex systems without the use of statistics).

 

If they had used an FMEA (Failure Mode Effect Analysis  . . . a tool used in Six Sigma) then they could have anticipated failures and put error proofing devices in place to detect and/or respond to potential faults BEFORE it is irreversible. If we add a Monte Carlo simulation to potential working conditions then the model forecasts probability plots and identifies key factors that will be critical to success or failure.

 

Perhaps they did indeed use a Monte Carlo using Crystal Ball. It is a good product but if they used Palisade’s @RISK and added some of the other tools provided by Palisade such as RISK Optimizer, Neural Tools, etc. then they could have analyzed the system in other dimensions besides a simple Monte Carlo, thus uncovering weaknesses BEFORE designing and/or building the platform and well.

 

Part 2: Capping the well head

 

In Lean there is a whole discipline called “Error Proofing Devices”. As part of the design effort we need to create first and foremost safety and other devices that prevent the error from occurring in the first place. If that line of defense fails then there should be devices built into the process designed to cap the well if your error proofing fails. If that line of defense fails then there should be a disaster response plan created and practiced and tested to ensure that the spill is repaired immediately.

 

Part 3: Treating the resulting spill

 

Again, Design of Experiments could test different materials, chemicals and methods to find the right combination to contain or otherwise manage the resulting oil spill. Trying one chemical only may be the age old definition of madness . . . trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Again, a robust design of experiments could aid in the process of finding a solution that is most effective and with multiple tests on the same samples ensure that is it the most safe for the environment and the population most directly in the path of the oil spill. These tests are ideally run years before such a spill however, doing something now is better than simply standing by and watching it happen.

 

Last but not least:

 

Management (Executives down to line managers) should have coaches. Coaches who can speak to the culture, the systems design, the tools and methods used in Lean Six Sigma and who can verify data analysis and help with the accurate interpretation of the data. These coaches should be independent . . . not a full time employee of the corporation as they are more likely to speak the truth and highlight risks as well as opportunities.

 

Now BP and all the other entities may have done some of what I mentioned above. But I would assume they must have left out one or more of the listed items or we wouldn’t be looking at the oil traveling into the wetlands around New Orleans right now. Hindsight is always brilliant but we can learn from our mistakes. We can create better cultures, systems, error proofing devices, Experimental Designs etc.

 

 

BIO:  

 

Sandi Claudell is CEO of MindSpring Coaching. She is a Master Black Belt in Six Sigma, a Lean Master and has worked as a consultant for many companies to initiate worldwide improvements. For more information or to contact Sandi please visit http://www.mindspringcoaching.com/.

Statistical Gizmos and the UK Election

Thursday, May 20, 2010 by Holly Bailey
The recent elections in the United Kingdom provided a really fun opportunity to see how extensively statistical decision evaluation and predictive modeling have penetrated popular culture.  The British press outdid themselves with online graphical gizmos that allowed readers to set the terms for outcome scenarios and let those spin out in true operations management style.
 
While The BBC offered an election seat calculator that really only translated voting percentages to number of Parliament seats won, the Guardian put up a Three-Way Swingometer.  With about 8, depending on which you count, parties in the fray, the Swingometer allowed readers to twiddle a dial to anticipate the effect of hypothetical party-shifting and election results.  
 
Next, Nate Silver, the election forecasting guru behind the FiveThirtyEight.com website, produced what he calls the Advanced Swingometer to offset the statistical disarray introduced by the original version's assumption of a uniform rate of "swing."  He backed this up with a demonstration of how elegant the statistical analysis  behind his model was. 
 
The Times came forward with a predictive map based on the predictions of gamblers in UK's lively betting shop scene.  Who know where those risk assessments came from.  
 
None of the online descriptions of the methods behind the gizmos were very detailed.  There were no mentions of named statistical analysis procedures, and this turns out to have been a good thing--because none of the gambits proved up to foreseeing the muddle that resulted from the actual voting.  If you wanted to try to come to a clear view of that, you will need to consult the decision tree posted by the BBC. 

Put More Science into Cost Risk Analysis

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
At the 2010 Palisade Risk Conference in London, John Zhao of Statoil used a mock cost estimate contingency model to demonstrate how @RISK simulation functions can yield a more realistic project contingency through integrated qualitative risk assessment and quantitative risk analysis.

While future oil prices may be hard to predict due to low manageability, it is absolutely possible to scientifically forecast the sizes of risks that companies are willing to take, and such risks may include the probabilistic volumes of newly discovered reserves, the probability of meeting a project development schedule, chances of project cost overruns, and the likelihood of eroding entire project profitability. To achieve these goals, @RISK has lent a helping hand to business analysts for easier operation of complicated mathematical modelling.

Statoil, an international oil company, takes risk management seriously and has applied Monte Carlo simulation techniques in core and support businesses using @RISK. Such applications not only include the solo use of individual applications, but integrated combinations from drilling, reserve estimation, and well completion to cost and schedule controls at project execution. Besides the widespread uses of the software, Zhao discussed a specific application of @RISK to convincingly simulate required capital project contingency  in detail.

A simplistic line-item ranging exercise using @RISK Monte Carlo simulation is no longer adequate to derive large capital project contingency, as empirical data confirmed that many disastrous cost overrunning projects were lack of contingency to cover the covert risks. In order to show management a complete risk picture on a project, both systemic risks (which empirical history has indicated a likelihood of occurring), and specific risks (which have discrete probabilistic characteristics), should be included in the overall project risk analysis. Therefore the combination of continuous PDF for project cost estimates, and discrete PDF for project risk registers, may prevail and provide management with a more convincing project cost contingency.

John Zhao is Quality and Risk Manager at StatoilHydro Canada Limited. He has 22 years project management experience in the petrochemical industry. He has authored many papers and made numerous presentations worldwide on the subject of risk and contingency management. In the past 10 years, John has developed his expertise in cost engineering and risk analysis for large downstream and oilsands upstream projects across Canada. His extensive knowledge in construction project qualitative risk assessment process has made him an expert on the subject in North America; his proprietary Monte Carlo model using @RISK is a popular tool for project contingency and escalation simulation. The quantitative model that John has built has integrated @RISK with PrecisionTree to help corporations conduct risk-based strategic decision-making.

» View the complete abstract and PDF presentation of "Put More Science into Cost Risk Analysis"
» Read Zhao's whitepaper, "Put More Science into Quantitative Risk Analysis"


Robust Risk Analysis for the Time/Expertise Poor – Part 1

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
I have recently spoken to several clients whom have all came to the same conclusion about the risk analysis solution they think is most appropriate. They don’t want to do it, and I have no problem with that!

Of course that’s not precisely true. The benefits of Monte Carlo techniques in risk analysis are quite well understood and there is plenty of buy-in from businesses in the Australasian region. The trouble these businesses face (particularly in the realm of project cost estimation) is that the specific process of quantifying their risks for stochastic analysis and the ensuing simulation is not well understood and the means to ameliorate this appears to be beyond their reach. The modelling and simulation components of the project risk management process are not given adequate resources to be performed well, and certainly not to the extent that they provide the most useful information.

It is the case that many companies do not employ dedicated quantitative analysts. This means they have to rely upon some (maybe one) person in the team who has a non-zero quantity of experience and possibly training with risk simulation software to create a valid and credible stochastic model. This person is also not likely to be given enough time to do said task, thus the model inevitably suffers. It is my experience that most models – and all project cost estimation models – can be improved or actually need to be fixed.

So the corporate mind is willing, but the flesh is weak. How can this be addressed? No amount of additional training will suddenly allow you to overcome your time and resource constraints. Perhaps you can’t get the budget for training anyway or don’t want to master risk analysis software when it’s not really core to your role? The solution is one that I personally endorse (and provide!) as a risk analysis consultant – custom Excel programming.

VBA for Excel is a fairly simple language to learn, yet very powerful tool for automating repetitive or sometimes complex spreadsheet tasks. A customised solution involves writing VBA code to perform the tasks we’d rather not do ourselves in the risk analysis model. The “we” here refers to companies that find themselves in the situations previously described whereby they are incapable of creating and operating these models, not necessarily though any fault of their own. In my next blog I’ll examine some modelling problems/requirements and how they might be dealt with effectively using customisation.

Rishi Prabhakar
Trainer/Consultant

Profitability Projections in a Manufacturing Environment of High Uncertainty

Monday, April 12, 2010 by Steve Hunt

The other night, I had the opportunity to watch a free webcast titled “Use of @RISK for Probabilistic Decision Analysis of a Manufacturing Forecast in an Environment of High Uncertainty”. This presentation was extremely timely, since many companies are struggling to survive in these challenging economic times. Dr. Jose Briones did an excellent job discussing and illustrating how profitability projections in a manufacturing environment are directly tied to how the sales forecast fits with the capability of the operation, and how different manufacturing capacities and productions rates impact the output of the plant and the allocation of the fixed cost of production.

In the example he presents, a company is trying to decide how best to balance the sales of certain families of products to maximize revenue, maintain a diverse product line, and properly price each individual product based on the impact to the manufacturing schedule and fixed cost allocation.

He spends an appropriate amount of time discussing different input distributions such as the Triangular, Normal, Pert and Gamma distributions as well as sharing his recommendations on when to use them. He also shares his expertise on fixed cost allocation by product and the dangers in using the common method of dividing the fixed cost by the total production, and recommends doing so by allocating the fixed costs based on the projected run time of each product family. Lastly, he spends some time discussing the interpretation of the results, which I feel does a great job wrapping up the information presented in the webcast.
 

Dr. Jose A. Briones is currently the Director of Operations for SpyroTek Performance Solutions, a diversified supplier of specialty materials, BPM software and innovation consulting services. Dr. Briones has a PhD in Chemical Engineering from Clemson University and is a graduate of the Business Administration Program of Wharton Business School. If you have any questions about the webcast, you can contact Jose at Brioneja@SpyroTek.com or through Jameson Romeo-Hall at Palisade Corporation.
 

 

Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Land of Buzz

Friday, April 9, 2010 by Holly Bailey
For the past couple of years, I've been following the advance of cloud computing into the marketplace.  Recently, as the Cloud has begun to--I can't say materialize as that might confer some notion of definable substance, which in this line of business is to be avoided at all costs--become a presence, information officers have been increasingly interested in matters of costs and benefits. Those who are considering migrating their current computing operations to the Cloud would like to make risk assessments that weigh CAPEX--capital expense--against OPEX--operating expense--and for that they will need help calculating the TCO--the Total Cost of Ownership. To forecast the TCO, they will need to get out the Monte Carlo software to predict their potential flow of data out through the Cloud, and depending on a company's familiarity with risk analysis, this "could = hire a consultant who understands the meaning of all this."
 
Recently, to help clarify matters, a Computerworld blogger declared, "The fact that people are so interested in cloud TCO indicates that the general value proposition of cloud computing has been accepted and absorbed."  The need for this incisive commentary he blames on the fact that "there's been an amazing amount of FUD"--Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt--"strewn about on the topic of cloud TCO." 

My problem with this discussion, as you've probably gathered, is not the efforts of smart people to grapple with the opportunities and operations management issues raised by Internet-based computing.  It's the FUD that folks in computing seem to experience when it comes to clear, plain labels.  They flee into the land of buzz in order to assure TO--Total Ownership--of the terms.  
 
For starters, take the term Cloud for Internet.  It all gets just a little too. . . .well, vaporous.  It makes me feel like the grandmother of a man being ceremoniously installed as a dean at Cornell University a while back.  Having survived into her nineties and through the morning's pomp and circumstance, she asked her grandson what exactly he would be doing in this new job, and as he started to explain, she looked as if something tasted bad.  Finally she broke in.  "Honey," she said, "if you can't say it in one sentence, it has got to be illegal." 

New Approaches to Risk and Decision Analysis

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 by DMUU Training Team


Risk analysis and decision-making tools are relevant to most organisations, in most industries around the world.  This is demonstrated by the speaker line-up at this year's European User Conference, an event at which we believe it is important to bring together customers from a wide range of market sectors.

We are holding 'New Approaches to Risk and Decision Analysis' at the Institute of Directors in central London on 14th and 15th April 2010.  As with previous years, the programme aims to provide everyone attending with practical advice to enhance the decision-making capabilities of their organisation.  Customer presentations, which offer insight into a wide variety of  business applications of risk and decision analysis, include:
  • CapGemini: Faldo's folly or Monty's Carlo – The Ryder Cup and Monte Carlo simulation
  • DTU Transport: New approaches to transport project assessment; reference scenario forecasting and quantitative risk analysis
  • Georg-August University Research: Benefits from weather derivatives in agriculture: a portfolio optimisation using RISKOptimizer
  • Graz University of Technology: Calculation of construction costs for building projects – application of the Monte Carlo method
  • Halcrow: Risk-based water distribution rehabilitation planning – impact modelling and estimation
  • Pricewaterhouse Coopers: PricewaterhouseCoopers and Palisade: an overview
  • Noven: Use of Monte Carlo simulations for risk management in pharmaceuticals
  • SLR Consulting: Risk sharing in waste management projects - @RISK and sensitivity analysis
  • Statoil: Put more science into cost risk analysis
  • Unilever: Succeeding in DecisionTools Suite 5 rollout – Unilever's story
We will also look at the recently-launched language versions of @RISK and DecisionTools Suite, which are now available in French, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Japanese.  Software training sessions will provide delegates with practical knowledge to ensure they can optimise their use of the tools and implement business best practise and methodologies.

With over 100 delegates from around the world attending, the event is also a good opportunity to network and knowledge-share with risk professionals from around the world.

» Complete programme schedule, more information on each presentation,
   and registration details



Use of @RISK for Probabilistic Decision Analysis of a Manufacturing Forecast in an Environment of High Uncertainty

Monday, March 8, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
This Thursday, 11 March 2010 at 11am ET, Dr. Jose A. Briones, SpyroTek Performance Solutions, will present a free live webcast entitled, Use of @RISK for Probabilistic Decision Analysis of a Manufacturing Forecast in an Environment of High Uncertainty

Profitability projections in a manufacturing environment are directly tied to how the sales forecast fits with the capability of the operation. When a company has a large portfolio of products with very different operational production rates, the manufacturing capacity of the plant will be significantly impacted by the product mix to be produced. This in turn will have a radical effect on the output of the plant and the allocation of the fixed cost of production. In this case we present an example where a company is trying to decide how best to balance the sales of certain families of products to maximize revenue, maintain a diverse product line, and properly price each individual product based on the impact to the manufacturing schedule and fixed cost allocation.

» Register now for this FREE live webcast
» View archived webcasts

Pensions – The Ticking Time Bomb

Monday, March 1, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Government have indicated that they will raise the state pensions age of men and women to help reduce the UK’s national debt.  In addition, more and more employers in the private sector are closing good pension schemes. The Association of Consulting Actuaries’ (ACA) recent survey on pension trends has revealed that 59% of employers are set to review pensions ahead of 2012 and 24% of employers will consider pension benefit reductions when they have to auto-enroll all employees into a scheme.

With taxes on business and individuals likely to rise over the next few years, it is difficult to see anything other than a deteriorating climate for pension savings unless there is a radical change of approach, says the ACA. It has proposed a standing Pension Commission that will challenge the legal and regulatory hurdles standing in the way of sensible long-term pension designs.

Perhaps, a more in-depth risk analysis may help the ACA make a stronger case to the government. As a related example, in the US, the Society of Actuaries and the Casualty Actuary Society, sponsored a research project with the Illinois State University to develop a model for projecting economic indices such as interest rates, equity price levels, inflation rates, unemployment rates, and real estate price levels. The model was created using Palisade’s @RISK and Microsoft Excel. In fact, @RISK’s built-in probability distribution functions, correlation matrices, and simulation results were essential to the study.

The UK ‘pensions’ landscape is set to undergo tremendous change, which will impact each and every one of us. Using scientific, risk analysis techniques, actuarial industry bodies can develop a strong argument and lobby the government so that informed policy decisions are made that are right for both the financial health of the nation and its citizens.

Craig Ferri
EMEA Managing Director of Risk & Decision Analysis

New business planning – measuring feasibility

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 by DMUU Training Team
The latest Business in Britain survey from Lloyds TSB Commercial shows that the UK's commercial enterprises are regaining confidence.  The six monthly report charts the performance of 1,732 UK companies and their views on prospects for the coming year. Its most recent business confidence shows that expectations for both sales and orders have started to recover. The balance of firms anticipating an upturn in sales has climbed to 21% - from just 1% six months ago.   And hopes for orders are also looking brighter. The balance expecting order levels to rise over the coming six months has climbed to 23%, from just 6% in the last survey.

But companies planning major new business drives for 2010 would do well to follow the example of Thales UK, which uses @RISK  to enable it to assess commercial feasibility of potential new business wins. @RISK's in-depth risk analysis ensures the leading provider of mission-critical electronic information systems for aerospace, defence and security markets around the world, is fully informed when making business-critical decisions.

Thales operates in a highly competitive environment, with technologically advanced countries presenting tough opposition when it tenders for contracts. It must continually develop highly sophisticated equipment that is robust and failsafe to meet the stringent demands of its customers. Bringing products of this calibre to market is costly in terms of time and resource, so for every competitive new business opportunity, Thales must be confident that it has a reasonable chance of success.

Using Monte Carlo analysis to show all potential scenarios and the likelihood that each will occur, @RISK enables Thales to calculate the competitiveness of complex markets, measure probabilities for project costs, quantify rate of return, and even account for the effects of cumulative business, thereby providing decision-makers with the most complete picture possible.  From this risk analysis, Thales can make an informed decision on the commercial viability of the potential new business offered.

Craig Ferri
EMEA Managing Director of Risk & Decision Analysis