Sam Billing by 2uN3YA3

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 35

									1
Business Report      Radioactive Waste Management




RadMan Consultants                             ii
   The University of Warwick
        School of Engineering




RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
        BUSINESS REPORT




               Prepared by


            Sebastian Roberts
                Tim Pegg
               Sam Billing
             Nikolas Petousis
               Iain Hughes
             Danny Thomas
               Carl Young
               Kevin Yong
Business Report                                        Radioactive Waste Management


Executive Summary

This report is presented in two parts; the first half analyses the management
requirements and business issues for the concepts proposed by the RadMan
Consultants, while the second half considers the RadMan internal project
management.



A cost analysis for the new concept was undertaken to estimate projected cost
increases compared to the original UK Nirex Ltd design. An annual increase of just
over £10m over the course of the repository’s 100 year PGRC phase was estimated,
mostly consisting of £10m in wages and consumables for personnel per annum.



Project management techniques are used for the duration of the project to ensure it
is carried out in a successful and efficient manner.




RadMan Consultants                                                               ii
Business Report                                                              Radioactive Waste Management

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... ii

1    Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

2    Human Resources ............................................................................................... 2

    2.1    Number of Workers ....................................................................................... 2

3    Costing ................................................................................................................. 4

    3.1    Existing Cost Estimates ................................................................................. 4

    3.2    Cost Estimation Methods............................................................................... 5

    3.3    Extrapolation for the PGRC ........................................................................... 5

    3.4    Cost Comparisons ......................................................................................... 6

     3.4.1       Inspection Cells Comparison .................................................................. 6

     3.4.2       Overpacking Cell Comparison ................................................................ 7

     3.4.3       Personnel Comparison ........................................................................... 7

     3.4.4       Transfer Tunnel Comparison .................................................................. 8

     3.4.5       Cost Comparison Conclusions ................................................................ 9

    3.5    Individual Components .................................................................................. 9

    3.6    Cost Estimation Conclusion ......................................................................... 10

4    Evaluations ........................................................................................................ 11

    4.1    Methodology ................................................................................................ 11

    4.2    Reliability ..................................................................................................... 11

5    Further Management Issues .............................................................................. 12

    5.1    Safety Management .................................................................................... 12

    5.2    Other Issues ................................................................................................ 12

6    Group Management Issues ................................................................................ 13

    6.1    RadMan Group Management ...................................................................... 13

    6.2    Project Management Key Points ................................................................. 13



RadMan Consultants                                                                                                          iii
Business Report                                                                Radioactive Waste Management

7    Group Dynamics ................................................................................................ 14

    7.1      Personnel .................................................................................................... 14

    7.2      Leader Selection ......................................................................................... 14

    7.3      Belbin Role Assesments .............................................................................. 14

    7.4      Belbin Scores .............................................................................................. 16

    7.5      Belbin Group Analysis ................................................................................. 17

8    Motivation........................................................................................................... 19

    8.1      Project Life Cycle......................................................................................... 19

    8.2      Team Building ............................................................................................. 20

    8.3      Team Availability ......................................................................................... 20

9    Resource Allocation ........................................................................................... 21

10        Room Booking ................................................................................................ 22

11        Project Funding............................................................................................... 23

    11.1        Budget ...................................................................................................... 23

    11.2        Costs ........................................................................................................ 23

12        Meetings ......................................................................................................... 24

    12.1        Internal Meetings ...................................................................................... 24

    12.2        UK Nirex Ltd Meetings ............................................................................. 24

    12.3        Minutes and Agendas............................................................................... 24

    12.4        Meeting Structure ..................................................................................... 25

    12.5        Meeting Dynamics .................................................................................... 25

13        Communication ............................................................................................... 26

14        Gantt Chart Planning ...................................................................................... 27

    14.1        Project Milestones .................................................................................... 27

    14.2        Gantt Chart............................................................................................... 27

15        References ..................................................................................................... 29



RadMan Consultants                                                                                                           iv
Business Report                                     Radioactive Waste Management


1     Introduction

The concepts proposed for the PGRC will require management to ensure stable and
efficient operation. Three major factors to consider for the proposals are people
required, costs involved and safety requirements.



A major consideration for the development of designs, even to a concept level,
involves cost analysis.    Projected estimates for the additional costs through
development, manufacture and operation are necessary to control project costs.




    RadMan Consultants                                                           1
Business Report                                      Radioactive Waste Management


2      Human Resources

2.1    Number of Workers

The number of workers required will vary dependant upon throughput required. The
increase in personnel detailed in this section is based on a high throughput requiring
2 operators for each inspection cell. If throughput is lower they may be able to move
from vault to vault according to demand to lower costs and minimise idle time spent
waiting for packages.



There are two phases to be considered at this stage – filling the repository
(operational phase) and maintaining the repository (care and maintenance phase).
The first stage is estimated to last for approximately 30 years for costing purposes
while existing plans for phase two extend a further 70 years.



In the existing PGRC concept developed by UK Nirex Ltd there are expected to be
270 workers required to operate the repository at any time during the operation
phase, and 73 during the care and maintenance phase. [1]



During both stages it will be assumed that 2 workers are required for each inspection
cell. This gives company and safety for the workers, and enables them to work
together to fully inspect the incoming package.



If throughput is lower, 2 workers may not be required, and may be an unnecessary
source of cost.   The benefit of more than one worker present for inspection is
enhanced by multiple master-slave manipulators being available. This allows greater
flexibility for manoeuvring and holding parts and also concurs with current safety
policies of having more than one worker present for each task.



With 11 vaults this indicates an addition of 22 workers for the inspection cells, plus 4
to operate the overpacking cells and 6 managers, giving a total per shift of 32
additional workers.     With the 3-shift system in place this means a total of 96


      RadMan Consultants                                                          2
Business Report                                   Radioactive Waste Management

additional workers. While there will be an associated increase in consumables costs
there should not be additional measures required for the overall PGRC in terms of
access or safety beyond extending existing parameters.




   RadMan Consultants                                                         3
Business Report                                           Radioactive Waste Management


3      Costing

3.1    Existing Cost Estimates

The repository is designed to operate in a safe yet cost-effective manner. Cost is not
the most important factor when considering design options yet it must be considered.
Adding the suggested facilities will increase both construction and running costs for
the repository as a whole.



There are two separate costs to consider for the additional facilities. These are set
up costs and operating costs. Operating costs are particularly difficult to calculate as
the designs are in a concept stage.



The table below shows the cost values UK Nirex Ltd have assumed for the 100 year
PGRC period. These cost estimates have been stated with a confidence level of
60% [2].




                    Table 1: UK Nirex Ltd report N/067 – Cost Estimates [3]




      RadMan Consultants                                                          4
Business Report                                         Radioactive Waste Management


3.2    Cost Estimation Methods

There are various methods with which a cost analysis can extend to provide a
realistic estimation of projected costs for this project.

          Extrapolation for the PGRC

          Cost comparisons

          Individual components estimates



There are benefits and disadvantages for each, and they are explained and analysed
in the following sections. The conclusions are discussed in section 3.6.



3.3    Extrapolation for the PGRC

To increase the PGRC design by including the concepts proposed the existing
projected overall cost can be scaled and adjusted according to estimates.             This
estimation will give a figure that should confirm the magnitude of the cost given by
analysis of individual components.       Accuracy of this method is low, as it does not
take into account the varying effects different areas will have on the costs, and it is
highly reliant on a singular subjective value.



Based on a preliminary assessment the additional proposals to incorporate
inspection facilities should add approximately 1% to the overall design. This is based
on size, complexity and man-power. Using this 1% valuation gives a cost increase of
approximately £34m.



Clearly this is a very inaccurate estimate useful only for initial guesses for viability as
the main variable is determined by a subjective manner – deciding the valuation
proportion. For example, if the developments are valued at 0.1% of the total cost the
estimate decreases by a factor of 10 to just £3.4m. Additionally, this analysis takes
into account all aspects of the PGRC design, even those that will be unaffected by
adding the facilities proposed. Focussing more specifically on the cost aspects that



      RadMan Consultants                                                             5
Business Report                                     Radioactive Waste Management

will affect this design development will create a cost estimate with a greater
confidence level.



3.4    Cost Comparisons

Cost comparisons involve basing cost estimates for proposed additions to the PGRC
on UK Nirex Ltd’s cost projections for relevant aspects of the existing design. This
analysis is more accurate than that in section 3.3, which is based on a percentage
increase to the whole PGRC design as it disregards irrelevant areas. The main
areas to be considered are the inspection cells, overpacking cell, additional workers
and changes to the transfer tunnel. While decisions and values are still subjective
they incorporate more specific information. The rest of this section outlines these
comparisons in more detail.



3.4.1 Inspection Cells Comparison

Underground facilities as designed by UK Nirex Ltd are expected to come to an
estimated £274m. This relates to £32.8m for each UILW vault, of which £19m is
associated with overhead costs unrelated to the size of the vault. These come in the
form of shield doors, cranes and maintenance areas. [4]



The main costs the developments will add to the ‘overhead’ are the monitoring
systems.     The remaining £13.8m is mostly comprised of excavation and running
costs. This £13.8m can be adjusted to account for the additional vault size and
complexity. An adjustment factor of 5% is a reasonable assumption for this. With this
adjustment factor the cost becomes £14.49m per vault, or £159.4m overall compared
to 151.8m.



An adjustment of 1% for overhead costs gives a total of £211.1m as opposed to
£209m. Summing the overhead and the remaining costs increases gives a total cost
increase estimate of £9.7m for the inspection cells. This increase is for 100 years,
and equates to £97,000 per year based on a constant rate.



      RadMan Consultants                                                       6
Business Report                                      Radioactive Waste Management

3.4.2 Overpacking Cell Comparison

The costing for the Overpacking Cells could be likened to that of the Inlet Cell for the
existing PGRC design.       They will be of similar sizes, with a similar amount of
transport mechanisms in them. For a rough approximation the cost estimate for the
Inlet Cell will provide a good basis.



The two Inlet Cells proposed by UK Nirex Ltd are estimated at a cost of £65m
between them [5]. Using the above comparison this equates to roughly £32.5m for
the Overpacking Cell for the 100 year period.



This value seems very high in comparison to the inspection cells. It is possible the
cost of these cells is higher because they are located individually, increasing
overhead costs. The overpacking cell must have its own ventilation system, access
paths and power supplies in addition to increased excavation and setup costs.



3.4.3 Personnel Comparison

The existing PGRC design assumes an average cost of £57,500 per person
employed, working on a 3-shift basis. A value of 80 - 85% is added for the additional
costs associated with operation such as consumables.



For the 30 years of the emplacement phase, the 270 workers required are expected
to cost £31m per annum, and the 73 workers for the care and maintenance phase to
cost £8m [1]. This can be averaged to £14.9m per year for the first 100 years from
first placement.



The Inspection cells will operate on a basis consistent with existing PGRC designs.
This means 3-shift working, all maintenance protocols, and safety margins will be
replicated.   In general this will increase costs of the overall design by a small
percentage.




    RadMan Consultants                                                            7
Business Report                                        Radioactive Waste Management

With a total of 96 additional workers as discussed in section 2.1 there is an
associated worker cost increase of just over £5.5m for additional workers and £4.5m
for consumables, giving a total additional annual cost of £10m.



UK Nirex Ltd must also consider the cost of consultancy.          RadMan Consultants’
project is categorised as 30 CATS (standard units of work for students) per member,
equating to 300 hours each. At an estimated cost of £30 per hour this costs UK
Nirex Ltd £72,000. Johnson’s time is estimated to cost UK Nirex Ltd approximately
£50 per hour with a total time of 50 hours committed.          Purnell’s time costs are
considered irrelevant as he is acting in a teaching role due to the educational nature
of the project.



This leads to an additional cost of £74,500 in consultancy fees for the project. Due to
the imprecision and magnitude of the other cost estimates this amount is negligible.



3.4.4 Transfer Tunnel Comparison

The existing design for the transfer system requires only one track, but this design
effectively doubles it. Not only is an additional track put in to accommodate 2-way
traffic, but a shield wall is erected to allow maintenance of one while the other is still
in use.



UK Nirex Ltd assume a cost of £21m is put on the total movement of packages,
including marshalling, receipt and transfer [5]. The proposed development can be
assumed to account for an additional 10% of the costs in this area as a large degree
of the movement is unaffected. This creates an increase of £2.1m, giving a total
Transfer Cost of £23.1m for the 100 year period.




    RadMan Consultants                                                              8
Business Report                                     Radioactive Waste Management

3.4.5 Cost Comparison Conclusions

Using the cost comparisons outlines above gives annual increases of £97,000 for the
inspection cells, £325,000 for the overpacking cells, £10m for operational costs and
£21,000 for transfer costs. This gives a total annual cost increase of approximately
£10.4m for the developments proposed, and a total cost for the 100 year period of
£1b. Comparing this to the estimate of £34m from extrapolating existing data shows
the flaws apparent in extrapolating predictions based on a subjective valuation. The
main difference is the cost of employment, which was not detected in the first
analysis.



3.5    Individual Components

A third cost analysis possible involves costing all known components intended for the
concept. Many values can be adjusted from those used by UK Nirex Ltd, but this
may not be possible at this stage of the concept planning. Even with estimated
values input, human error can cause a factor to be overlooked, which may cause
unseen and possible large errors. Figures such as additional excavation volumes
and machine costs can be difficult to determine with any degree of confidence with
designs in concept phase. Further analysis is required to determine an estimate in
this manner.




      RadMan Consultants                                                       9
Business Report                                         Radioactive Waste Management


3.6    Cost Estimation Conclusion

Cost comparisons are the most appropriate form of cost analysis for this purpose.
They are accurate enough for concept designs and the information required is readily
obtainable from existing sources and the design concepts proposed.             Table 2

summarises the conclusions reached by the cost comparisons carried out here.



Area                   Existing 100 year      Additional 100 year   New 100 year Cost
                       Cost Projection        Cost Projection       Projection (£m)
                       (£m)                   (£m)
Inspection Cells       n/a                    9.7                   9.7
Overpacking Cell       n/a                    32.5                  32.5
Personnel              1,490                  1,000                 2,490
Transfer Tunnel        21                     2.1                   23.1
TOTAL                  1,511                  1,044.3               2,555.3
                               Table 2: Cost Analysis Values




The study undertaken above indicates a cost increase of approximately £1.044b for
the developments proposed. This is an acceptable figure, increasing the estimate of
£3.4b for the appropriate phases of the 100-year plan to £4.4b. This takes into
account start-up and operation costs.




      RadMan Consultants                                                         10
Business Report                                     Radioactive Waste Management


4      Evaluations

4.1    Methodology

As discussed in section 3.2, there are different methods to establish cost estimates.
It is believed the one used here to reach these conclusions is accurate and reliable
using the data available. An alternative method was appraised and dismissed as
unreliable, and another was deemed too detailed for a concept design study of this
nature.



4.2    Reliability

The assumptions made in this report are believed to be accurate based on the
knowledge gathered from UK Nirex Ltd. Whilst this is the case, many assumptions
are based on little more than an ‘educated guess’, and can therefore only be stated
with a low confidence level. UK Nirex Ltd state their assumptions and cost estimates
with a 60% confidence level, and basing further estimates on these figures clearly
decreases the accuracy.



The estimates derived in this report are assumed to have an 80% confidence level on
the original UK Nirex Ltd figures and approximations. This gives a confidence of
48% (0.8*60) for the overall confidence of the values stated in this report.      To
increase this confidence the analysis must be carried out with individual costs of
components involved in the design.



These requirements are included in the original data and their effect is carried
through in these calculations. It is not believed any additional safety checking is
necessary to validate these results.




      RadMan Consultants                                                       11
Business Report                                     Radioactive Waste Management


5      Further Management Issues

5.1    Safety Management

The repository is designed to conform to stringent safety specifications outlined by
UK Nirex Ltd and the governing bodies. As such the developments proposed must
conform to these requirements in all manners.



5.2    Other Issues

All management issues for the repository design developments not addressed
previously are included in existing UK Nirex Ltd policy and as such will be unaffected
by the developments proposed by RadMan Consultants.




      RadMan Consultants                                                        12
Business Report                                       Radioactive Waste Management


6      Group Management Issues

6.1    RadMan Group Management

RadMan Consultants need to employ project management to ensure the project is
successful and objectives are met in a judicious and efficient manner. Milestones
and deadlines set by examining authorities must be adhered to



The following sections outline the major project management tools utilised in this
project.



6.2    Project Management Key Points

          Provide sufficient planning and control to ensure the project is successful

          Select an appropriate leader

          Budget Management

          Resource Management

          Group Time Management

          Control meetings to ensure efficient progress




      RadMan Consultants                                                           13
Business Report                                           Radioactive Waste Management


7      Group Dynamics

7.1    Personnel

The group, named RadMan Consultants (Radioactive Waste Management
Consultants), is drawn together with no option to choose members.             This puts
pressure on the group to find a leader quickly who can provide a contact point for
both the group Supervisor and the contact at UK Nirex Ltd. The first group meeting
is used for introductions and a brief description of the project. It is highlighted that
establishing a leader is paramount.



The group consists of 8 student members: Iain Hughes, Sam Billing, Seb Roberts,
Timothy Pegg, Carl Young, Danny Thomas, Nikolas Petousis and Kevin Yong. The
team’s supervisor is Dr Phil Purnell, and a contact at UK Nirex Ltd is established as
Mark Johnson. The student members are drawn from various engineering disciplines
and include civil, mechanical, manufacturing and management and EDAT engineers.



7.2    Leader Selection

Upon initial discussions it is clear none of the group are keen to lead but it is felt
having one leader throughout is beneficial in comparison to rotating leadership. After
a brief discussion Seb Roberts is selected as group leader.                As the sole
Manufacturing and Management student he has experience in project management
and it is felt this is a useful quality for the leader.



7.3    Belbin Role Assesments

Belbin tests were developed to enable easy classification of people’s strengths,
weaknesses and capabilities in relation to teamwork 9 categories of personality, or
attitude, are established, comprising of Chairman (CO); Resource Investigator (RI);
Completer-finisher (CF); Team-worker (TW); Monitor-evaluator (ME); Plant (PL),
Implementer (IM), Company worker (CW) and Specialist (SP).              Table 3   lists the
various Belbin roles, along with keywords often used to describe them.



      RadMan Consultants                                                             14
Business Report                                            Radioactive Waste Management




Belbin Role             Description
Resource                Extrovert, curious, enthusiastic, communicative, develops
investigator            contacts
Completer               Orderly, conscientious, anxious, perfectionist, punctual
Team-worker             Social, mild, sensitive, promote team-spirit
Monitor-evaluator       Sober, strategic, calm, prudent, hard-headed
Plant                   Individualistic, serious, unorthodox, intellect, imaginative
Implementer             Outgoing, dynamic, challenging, highly driven, highly strung
Chair/Coordinator       Self-confident, calm, controlled, good vision, mature, good
                        judgement
Company worker          Conservative, dutiful, predictable, common sense, self-
                        disciplined
Specialist              Single minded, self-starting, dedicated
                                   Table 3: Belbin roles




Existing methods of selecting teams based on overall skill, expertise and intelligence
creates an unbalanced group with inherent instability. Dr Belbin derived a system to
select the most efficient team from available personnel. The process involves each
available person filling out a carefully designed questionnaire concerning their
personal traits, and tallying scores in such a way as to point at the role they are most
suited to.     The team is then selected so that a balance of personalities is
represented.



One important aspect of Belbin’s analysis of team roles is the ease of which
fundamental flaws in a team can be seen. For example, if it is clear a team is
missing a chairperson, somebody must take control whilst remaining calm to make
decisions and plan meetings.       If Plants are lacked, the team should make an
additional effort to brainstorm new ideas and conscientiously think ‘outside the box’.



Individually, it helps to know both ones weaknesses and how one can be of most
benefit to the team. If the rest of the team are aware of personality traits or fallacies




    RadMan Consultants                                                                 15
  Business Report                                               Radioactive Waste Management

  they can understand and allow for them and not become frustrated, helping prevent
  friction between team members.

  7.4     Belbin Scores

  The range of Belbin roles in RadMan is shown in Figure 1. This is taken from the top 3
  scores of each member.



                                       RadMan Belbin Coverage

          100
              90
              80
              70                                                                      Roberts
                                                                                      Hughes
              60
                                                                                      Billing
  Score 50                                                                            Yong
              40                                                                      Pegg
                                                                                      Young
              30
                                                                                      Petousis
              20                                                                      Thomas
              10
               0
                   CO    SH       PL     ME      IM        TW   RI    CF    SP
                                           Belbin Role


                                       Figure 1: Team Belbin scores


  The values for each member are shown in Table 4 with their top scores highlighted:

          CO        SH        PL           ME         IM        TW     RI        CF    SP
Roberts 11          9         8            12         10        5      9         4     2
Hughes 7            3         9            3          12        8      3         11    14
Billing   9         6         6            10         13        6      9         8     3
Yong      3         5         0            0          17        10     10        11    14
Pegg      6         6         8            5          15        10     6         6     8
Young     10        13        3            15         9         2      11        3     3
Petousis 6          8         3            8          11        9      10        6     8



        RadMan Consultants                                                              16
 Business Report                                                Radioactive Waste Management

Thomas 4         4            11         9          9           11         13        2   7
                                   Table 4: Individual Belbin scores




 The chart demonstrates the range of personalities present in the team. The overall
 skill distribution throughout the team can be seen clearly, allowing a team analysis to
 be done.



 The role each member is to take is outlined in Table 5. Each member also has a
 secondary role within the group to help cover the areas left by primary roles. Primary
 and secondary roles within the group are not necessarily based on rankings within
 members’ Belbin scores, as people must sacrifice and adapt to benefit the group. A
 column for a tertiary role is also included for where necessary.



                     Team          Primary           Secondary           Tertiary
                     Member        Belbin Role       Belbin Role         Belbin Role
                     Seb                  ME                 CO
                     Iain                 SP                  IM                CF
                     Sam                   IM                ME
                     Kevin                 IM                SP
                     Tim                   IM                TW
                     Carl                 ME                 SH
                     Nick                  IM                 RI                TW
                     Danny                   RI              PL                 TW
                             Table 5: Individual scores for each Belbin role




 7.5    Belbin Group Analysis

 Within this group the member with the highest Coordinator score is Seb Roberts, with
 a score of 11. Leadership selection was carried out prior to the Belbin test being
 done but the results shown clearly confirm the choice.



 The RadMan group is very high on Implementers. This is good for developing ideas
 and should create a highly passionate and motivated group. It is important to note



       RadMan Consultants                                                                17
Business Report                                        Radioactive Waste Management

however that a calming influence in the form of a Coordinator must be aware that this
can also create a highly dynamic and volatile group.



The generation of ideas and concepts may pose a problem for this group, as the
Plant score is relatively low. As the group are now aware of this however, additional
time can be spent concentrating on discussions and the generation of ideas.



Hughes is delegated as a Completer/Finisher in a tertiary role.      He has a high
enough CF score to do this, and can be relied on to insist on perfection. This role
would be suited well to taking minutes and assisting the Coordinator with time
management.



Overall the group seems balanced and should work together well. The areas the
team are less strong in have been highlighted allowing the issues created to be
monitored and accounted for.




    RadMan Consultants                                                         18
Business Report                                             Radioactive Waste Management


8      Motivation

8.1    Project Life Cycle

It is important to keep motivation high throughout the duration of a project. Figure 2
demonstrates how motivation can vary in a typical project life cycle. This can be
divided into 4 stages: conception, development, execution, and completing.



When a project is first initiated morale is generally low. There is often confusion and
people can feel overwhelmed. As the team bonds and the project is understood and
accepted, interest and enthusiasm grow. This interest leads to additional research
and team members feel involved and confident with the project.



As project conclusion draws closer, team members can begin to feel disorientated
and confused. It can be difficult to imagine closing the project, and disheartenment
can set in. In industry people can feel anxious about their situation and job security
once the project is completed.        Finally there is a surge of energy just prior to
completion as understanding and confidence grow again. With some projects this is
linked to reallocation and excitement for the next challenge.




           Enthusiasm




                                          Project Timescale


                            Figure 2: Project life cycle – motivation




      RadMan Consultants                                                            19
Business Report                                      Radioactive Waste Management

The project manager must be aware of how team members are feeling and take
appropriate action if necessary to bring members back on track. Occasionally to start
the growth of interest it is sensible to have an intense period of gaining the
background knowledge base and ensuring every member is committed.



8.2    Team Building

To establish good communication links between the team at the start, a RadMan
social event is planned.    This allows the team to meet each other in a relaxed
environment and the stipulations often imposed in a meeting scenario are removed,
allowing people with a less outgoing demeanour to express themselves.




8.3    Team Availability

To establish realistic project goals and a schedule for future work, it is necessary to
determine the amount of time each member of the team can contribute, and how this
time is distributed. To do this a timetable is created to outline periods where people
are unavailable. Providing a means for good group time management will also help
individual time management and distributing work more evenly should allow for a
higher overall quality.    The times for meetings will be discussed in the previous
meeting and confirmed via email and sms. This is discussed in section 13.



Individual participation will be monitored and discussed as appropriate as it is
realistic that not every member will be able to be present in every meeting. A peer
assessment system exists to monitor students’ progress but this can also be utilised
for group management to ensure consistent working ethics.




      RadMan Consultants                                                         20
Business Report                                     Radioactive Waste Management


9      Resource Allocation

Team members will discuss tasks at meetings and activities will be allocated
according to availability and specialisation. Within the team there is a variety of
skills, strengths and personalities which should be managed properly to increase
productivity.



The team will split into two groups to cover different aspects, allowing more complex
issues to be tackled; reducing the load on individuals and increasing the group’s
knowledge base. With more people learning different aspects of the project there is
a greater wealth of expertise available. The project leader will continue to assess
progress and the separate divisions report at regular meetings.



The final report is to be assembled by two members of the team working together.
They shall be the members whose writing styles are best suited to the purpose. The
project leader will select the members in agreement with the remainder of the team.




    RadMan Consultants                                                         21
Business Report                                      Radioactive Waste Management


10     Room Booking

F106, and the dedicated MEng project room B133, will be used by the group for
regular meetings. These will not need to be booked as if one is in use the other can
be used.    F211 is available as a backup or if all members need access to a
computer.



Meetings with Johnson will take place in conference room A410 when available. This
is to be booked by either Roberts or Purnell. Due to the logistics involved in these
visits sufficient notice should be given to ensure room availability and avoid wasted
journeys or using sub-standard meeting rooms with other users, a lack of facilities, or
high noise levels.




     RadMan Consultants                                                          22
  Business Report                                         Radioactive Waste Management


  11       Project Funding

  11.1     Budget

  A budget of £1000 is allocated to RadMan Consultants, plus £120 of printing credit.
  As this project involves no experimentation or materials it is assumed this budget is
  ample. Purnell is in charge of the budget and must approve any requests to spend it.
  The group will also discuss any potential costs.



  11.2     Costs

  This analysis assumes the project budget to cover all expenses as if the project were
  carried out as a consultation to UK Nirex Ltd. In reality however Johnson’s transport
  costs and resources are provided by UK Nirex Ltd.               This can be viewed as an
  extension to the project budget.



  The project budget should be accountable for all travel costs including trips to
  Harwell and Johnson’s trips to Warwick. The trip distance is approximately 70 miles
  and takes 1 hour 20 minutes. Minibus hire is free through the University with the
  exclusion of fuel.



  Project printing credit is used for the poster due in Week 10 and Final Report in
  Week 23. Other printing is done using students’ own credit. Table 6 shows a full
  breakdown of all costs associated with the project from start to finish.


Cost                Unit Cost    Amount        Comments
Printing            £0.06        £60           1000 sheets
Poster Printing     £40          £40
Travel              £0.40        £336          6 return trips of 140 miles [6]
Final    Report £4.80/£2.00      £34.80        3 sets of reports (for each: 2 books @ £4.80,
Printing                                       1 book @ £2)
TOTALS                           £466
                                Table 6: Project Cost Breakdown




         RadMan Consultants                                                          23
Business Report                                      Radioactive Waste Management

12     Meetings

12.1   Internal Meetings

If a member cannot make a meeting for a reason non-weekly they will provide an
explanation to the group and demonstrate their recent contributions.       This helps
avoid a situation where a member misses a large amount of meetings, leading to a
loss of momentum in the project and a lack of understanding of recent progress.



A timetable will be drawn up from each member’s study timetable and extra curricular
activities. Wherever possible people can add events that may affect their availability,
as they develop. One example of this may be approaching deadlines for course
assignments.



12.2   UK Nirex Ltd Meetings

RadMan Consultants aim to meet Johnson on a semi-regular basis dependant on his
availability. At least 2 meetings per term will be attended. Approximate dates for the
subsequent meeting are discussed in each meeting and confirmed by email. Precise
dates and times are discussed and confirmed by email. Either party can suggest a
meeting if one is not planned and upon discussion a date can be established.



Most external meetings take place at Warwick University as for all students to visit
UK Nirex Ltd involves hiring a minibus.      The group will visit Harwell during the
research stage of the project to gain a deeper knowledge of how the industry is run
and understand the position of Mark Johnson and UK Nirex Ltd.



12.3   Minutes and Agendas

Minutes will be taken informally for every meeting and will be available on request.
Any tasks or actions will be confirmed by email after the meeting. Meetings with
Johnson will have more formal minutes recorded and distributed to all present.




     RadMan Consultants                                                           24
Business Report                                        Radioactive Waste Management

This will allow all parties to act on tasks set during the meeting, especially useful with
the distribution of promised documents.



An agenda is drawn up for each meeting to ensure an efficient and productive
meeting where members fully prepared. Where possible this will be distributed to
everyone involved to allow adaptations and additions.



12.4    Meeting Structure

Meetings will be conducted by Roberts according to the set agenda. He will be
responsible for ensuring all matters are covered in the time allocated. Where
necessary discussions may be cut short to facilitate further points to be raised.



12.5    Meeting Dynamics

As the Belbin analysis demonstrated, there is a myriad of talents and personalities
present in the team. The chairman must ensure meetings run smoothly and all
members are able to promote their ideas. An important part of chairing a meeting is
being prepared to voice concerns and take control if the case in point is not being
adhered to.



Especially applicable with a student team, it is always easy for certain characters to
voice their opinions over others’. Sometimes brainstorming activities and structured
discussions are required to gather a full breadth of the knowledge available in the
room.




    RadMan Consultants                                                              25
Business Report                                     Radioactive Waste Management


13    Communication

The main communication method used throughout the project will be email.
University email addresses will be used to avoid confusion and allow easy
organisation of emails. The group leader will be a contact for both Johnson and
Purnell to avoid mass emailing and confusion due to lack of coordination. Mobile
telephones will also be used amongst the team to arrange meetings.



Whilst all members will have contact numbers for Purnell and Johnson, only Roberts
will contact them in a group setting. Due to Johnson’s commitments with UK Nirex
Ltd it is easier for him to receive calls from few numbers. The team can visit Purnell
in his office when necessary.



Purnell is to be carbon-copied into emails detailing group meetings. This allows him
to attend as his schedule allows. Either party can request additional meetings.




     RadMan Consultants                                                           26
Business Report                                       Radioactive Waste Management


14     Gantt Chart Planning

14.1   Project Milestones

The project must run to deadlines imposed by the School of Engineering. Within
these parameters the group can bring deadlines forward to ensure the deadline is
met or gain added feedback before final hand-in.         UK Nirex Ltd may also add
deadlines to suit their needs. If a deadline is changed from the original parameters
all parties must concur. Bringing a deadline forward must leave sufficient time to
complete the task.



14.2   Gantt Chart

Gantt Charts are used to assess the flow of the project. All tasks are loaded and a
critical path can be established.    This gives a realistic view of when tasks and
objectives must be completed by. The original plan can be adapted and adjusted as
the project progresses to align with actual progress, but the initial parameters must
be remembered and adhered to.




Figure 3 demonstrates the original baseline plan. The tasks are set out with a critical
path, ensuring slack is minimised. The tasks shown in red are deadlines imposed by
the ES410 course and therefore critical. Due to the conceptual nature of the project
it is difficult to predict how long each research task will take so deadlines for when
each task is due are based on the required finishing times of the critical tasks. The
amount of time allocated stretches until just after the previous deadline.




     RadMan Consultants                                                          27
Business Report                                     Radioactive Waste Management




                  Figure 3: Gantt chart of Project Baseline Plan




   RadMan Consultants                                                       28
Business Report                                    Radioactive Waste Management


15     References



[1] UK Nirex Ltd Report N/067 - Generic Programme and Cost Estimate - Repository
       Construction & Operation (2003). Page 26-27

[2] UK Nirex Ltd Report N/067 - Generic Programme and Cost Estimate - Repository
       Construction & Operation (2003). Page vii

[3] UK Nirex Ltd Report N/067 - Generic Programme and Cost Estimate - Repository
       Construction & Operation (2003). Page vii

[4] UK Nirex Ltd Report N/067 - Generic Programme and Cost Estimate - Repository
       Construction & Operation (2003). Page 21

[5] UK Nirex Ltd Report N/067 - Generic Programme and Cost Estimate - Repository
       Construction & Operation (2003). Page 22

[6]    www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/finance/expenses/uk1/travel   Last   accessed
       23/04/07




      RadMan Consultants                                                   29

								
To top