The metrics that matter using scalability metrics for project planning of a distributed workforce dilber mann
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,302 views
Have you expanded your organization across multiple locations, or are you a client that utilizes external partners that provide outsourcing services? Both have their "cost savings" challenge where cost savings analysis is often a topic well scrutinized. However, in the grand scheme of your organization, is it a metric that really matters? See actual analytics on multiple game projects and why cost savings isn't as important a metric when making informed decisions about project planning for scalable and distributed development. It's all about the Metrics that Matter.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (14)
Similar to The metrics that matter using scalability metrics for project planning of a distributed workforce dilber mann
Similar to The metrics that matter using scalability metrics for project planning of a distributed workforce dilber mann (20)
More from Mary Chan
More from Mary Chan (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The metrics that matter using scalability metrics for project planning of a distributed workforce dilber mann
- 1. The Metrics that Matter Project Planning using Scalability Metrics for Distributed Development Dilber Mann, Development Director Relic Entertainment Inc.
- 2. Overview • Establishing reliable metrics to help make informed decisions about organizing a distributed & scalable workforce.
- 3. Understanding Content Source • Context from multiple perspectives – Publishing / Central Group – Onsite Partner/Vendor management. – Studio Development
- 4. Discussion Points • Distributed Trends • Establishing your own system of metrics • Incorporating scalability metrics • Discussing Real-World examples. • Converting your Metrics into KPI’s
- 5. Identifying the Audience • Two distinct groups under Distributed Development 1. Consolidated Resource Structure • scalability through Outsourcing. • development outsources when needed 2. Distributed Resource Structure • scalability through distributed workforce. • development is always distributed.
- 6. Distributed Trends • Deciding between Distributed or Consolidated Organization. – Option (Distributed) is available when region has a wide range for cost of living. – Choice (for both) is driven by cost savings and scalability needs.
- 7. External Partner Distributed Trends • Relation between Consolidated & Distributed Teams Development Studio Location A Location B Location C Location D Outsource
- 8. Distributed Workforce • Advantages – Manage burn rate at lower tier/cost locations. – Maintain consistent man-day rates.
- 9. Distributed Workforce • Wide Range for cost of living in Asia/Europe region. • Tier 0/1: modern and Large Cities • Tier 2: modern but developing cities • Tier 3: developing cities • Tier 4: under developed, but progressively developing Cities.
- 10. Distributed Workforce • How to plan the distribution? – by using reliable metrics to make informed decisions.
- 11. Establishing Foundation Metrics • Cost Savings Analysis – Man-Day Rate comparisons – Scope – Impact of Studio Support
- 12. Cost Savings Analysis: Man-Day Rate Vendor Rate Studio Rate Avg Studio Man-Day Rate $198.00 $700.00 Mgm Overhead $22.00 $70.00 Man-Day Rate $220.00 $770.00 Vendor Costs Studio Costs Scope (Man-Days) 2500 2500 Rate * Scope $550,000.00 $1,925,000.00 Vendor Costs Studio Rate Scope (Man-Days) 2500 2500 Rate * Scope $550,000.00 $1,925,000.00 Studio Support $250,000.00 TOTAL $800,000.00 $1,925,000.00 71% SAVINGS VENDOR RATE STUDIO RATE ****Rates, scope, costs, and savings listed here are a sample used for comparison and do not reflect specific data used by any studio or external vendor.****
- 13. Cost Savings Analysis: Scope Vendor Rate Studio Rate Avg Studio Man-Day Rate $198.00 $700.00 Mgm Overhead $22.00 $70.00 Man-Day Rate $220.00 $770.00 Vendor Costs Studio Costs Scope (Man-Days) 2500 2500 Rate * Scope $550,000.00 $1,925,000.00 Vendor Costs Studio Rate Scope (Man-Days) 2500 2500 Rate * Scope $550,000.00 $1,925,000.00 Studio Support $250,000.00 TOTAL $800,000.00 $1,925,000.00 71% SAVINGS VENDOR RATE STUDIO RATE ****Rates, scope, costs, and savings listed here are a sample used for comparison and do not reflect specific data used by any studio or external vendor.****
- 14. Cost Savings Analysis: Studio Support 71% SAVINGS VENDOR RATE STUDIO RATE ****Rates, scope, costs, and savings listed here are a sample used for comparison and do not reflect specific data used by any studio or external vendor.****
- 15. Cost Savings Analysis: Studio Support 58% SAVINGS VENDOR RATE STUDIO STUDIO RATE SUPPORT ****Rates, scope, costs, and savings listed here are a sample used for comparison and do not reflect specific data used by any studio or external vendor.****
- 16. Resource Ramp-Up / Down 5% 9% 14% 17% 17% 17% 14% 9% 9% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 • Approx. 50% of Manpower spread across 3 months during peak time. ****Rates, scope, costs, and savings listed here are a sample used for comparison and do not reflect specific data used by any studio or external vendor.****
- 17. Resource Compression 12% 23% 28% 23% 12% 12% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% • Approx. 50% of Manpower spread across 2 months during peak time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ****Rates, scope, costs, and savings listed here are a sample used for comparison and do not reflect specific data used by any studio or external vendor.****
- 18. Resource Compression 12% 41% 41% 25% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% • Approx. 50% of Manpower spread across 1.25 months during peak time. • Disclaimer: The sum of Month to Month % of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 work may exceed 100% total due to contingency buffer used for planning. ****Rates, scope, costs, and savings listed here are a sample used for comparison and do not reflect specific data used by any studio or external vendor.****
- 19. Resource Productivity • 40 peak resources • 50% efficient at start • 80% efficient at peak Resource Efficiency & Savings Pilot Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Group 1 50% 70% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Group 2 50% 70% 80% 80% 80% 80% Group 3 50% 70% 80% 80% Group 4 50% 70% 80% ****Rates, scope, costs, and savings listed here are a sample used for comparison and do not reflect specific data used by any studio or external vendor.****
- 20. Importance of Cost Savings • 35% - 50% Good Range for Cost Savings. • Is Cost Savings the best decision making metric? • Is it a metric that speaks to scalability?
- 21. Building a System of Scalability Metrics • Man Effort Established – Internal Man Effort established externally. • Added Value – Man Effort added to project. • Budget Savings – Look at Internal cost of doing the same scope.
- 22. Scalability Metrics ****Rates, scope, costs, and savings listed here are a sample used for comparison and do not reflect specific data used by any studio or external vendor.****
- 23. Case Study • Improving Performance over time. – Step 1: Conventional OS – Step 2: Distributed Development – Step 3: Dissolving the centralized role
- 24. Conventional OS ManEffort Established Added Value Metric Budget Savings Metric Project A (Conventional) 19% 8% 13% Project B (Distributed Dev) 35% les s s cope than Project A Internal External 24% 7% 19% Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External
- 25. ManEffort Established Added Value Metric Budget Savings Metric Distributed Development Project A (Conventional) 19% 8% 13% Project B (Distributed Dev) 35% les s s cope than Project A Internal External Internal External 24% 7% 19% Project C (Optimum) Internal External Internal External 40% 20% 25% Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External
- 26. Dissolving the OS role Project B (Distributed Dev) 35% les s s cope than Project A 24% 7% 19% Project C (Optimum) Internal External Internal External 40% 20% 25% Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External
- 27. Converting Metrics into KPI’s • Why? – Keep track of your planned goals. • How? • Continue to update your data. – (planned & actuals). • Convert Metrics into KPI’s.
- 28. Converting Metrics into KPI’s • KPI’s (Key Performance Indicators) – Metrics scaled to a 0 – 100% range. • +100% Out performing • 75% - 100% Normal Performance • >50% or <75% • <=50% Need Escalation – Easy for multiple stakeholders to interpret.
- 29. Converting Metrics into KPI’s • 20% Added Value Metric (Max Threshold) – 20% x 5 (Multiplier) = 100% KPI • 25% Budget Savings Metric (Max Threshold) – 25% x 4 (Multiplier) = 100% KPI • 40% Man-Effort Metric (Max Threshold) – 40% x 2.5 (Multiplier) = 100% KPI
- 30. Converting Metrics into KPI’s ManEffort Established Added Value Metric Budget Savings Metric Project A (Conventional) 47% 38% 54% Project B (Distributed Dev) 35% les s s cope than Project A 59% 33% 76% Project C (Optimum) 100% 100% 100%
- 31. Our Purpose • To establish reliable metrics that can help us make informed decisions about how we plan our distributed workforce.
- 32. Summary • Distributed Trends – Manage the impact of idle/burn rate by using Lower Tier/Cost locations. – Maintain consistent man-day rates by creating balanced distributed teams. – Identify reliable metrics to plan the distribution of resources. • Cost Savings Analysis – Include Scalable Management & Studio Support. – Know that Schedule Compression has an impact. • Decision Making KPI’s – Know what your KPI’s are telling you. – Agree as an organization on the KPI goals. – Track KPI’s throughout production.
- 33. THANK YOU! • dmann@relic.com Q&A
Editor's Notes
- Step 1: Conventional OS -the approach that many distributed workforce organizations will start with. -the same applies to Clients/Studios that Outsource. -difficult to scale, as the artist have little context to how assets will work in game. (limits the type of work that can be sent to a distributed team) Step 2: Distributed Development -Best results when the working processes, tools, and pipelines of the core team are accessible to the distributed team. Step 3: Dissolving the Centralized role -typically considered an Outsource manager Role. -In order to scale, one manager cannot handle the scope of assets on their own. -delegate the responsibility to the lead management at your core location so they are in direct contact with their scalable teams. -applies to the OS role for the studio that uses outsourcing for scale.
- For the Consolidated Organization that outsources for scalability, the possibility of their external partners trending towards organizing themselves as a distributed workforce are quite high. And for those of you in the process of managing their organization as a distributed workforce, the scalability metrics I have introduced here is an option for you to make logical decisions about balancing your distributed team across multiple locations and keep rates competitive for yourselves and your clients.