Discussion and Review Questions

1.

Learning curves display the learning effect for complex jobs: learning results in a constant
percentage drop in unit time as the number of units produced double. Learning effect is
important to consider in decision making because it affects the time and cost of future units which
are used in planning and negotiations.

2.

Most learning occurs when the job is complex and labour content is high. Most learning occurs
in the initial stages of production.

3.

A learning percentage of 80 percent would imply that with each doubling of output, the unit time
decreases by 20 percent.

4.

In addition to actual learning (dexterity, quality improvement, etc), the factors that influence
learning include better tooling and equipment selection, product design, methods analysis,
supervision, training, production planning, scheduling/control, maintenance, and motivation.

5.

Many answers are possible. These include: learning how to study for a new class, how to write a
multiple choice exam, how to do the assignments, etc.

6.

The learning percentage will be higher (i.e., decrease in unit time lower) for jobs with higher
machine content. This is because machines dont learn, i.e., there isnt as much opportunity for
the operator to learn.

7.

Table 7S-1 contain the value of nb in Formula 7S-1 for n between 1 and 30, and selected values
of learning percentage [note: b = ln(learning % / 100) / ln(2)]. This makes the calculations
easier. Also, Table 7S-1 contains the cumulative times.

8.

If one takes logarithm of both sides of Formula 7S-1 (the power function), one gets Formula 7S-5
ln(Tn) = ln(T1) + b ln(n). Now, let y = ln(Tn), a = ln(T1), and x = ln(n), i.e., y = a + bx, the equation of a
line. Estimate this using Excels Trendline as a linear trend, and use b in b = ln(learning % / 100) / ln(2)

to determine the learning percentage.

9.

Learning curves are most useful in cost estimation.

10.

The carryover effect is the effect of learning from previous seemingly unrelated production. The
unit time will decrease slower than expected because the worker is farther along the curve.
In short cycle mass production, the job of a worker is very specialized and simple, and
improvements have already been made to the job throughout the years. The learning curve is
almost flat in mass production.

11.

Internet Exercise
http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/learn.html

For example, for n = 30 and learning % = 70%,

unit time = .174 and Total time = 9.305
which are identical to Table 7S-1 values

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

Problems
Some terminology used in solutions below:
P = learning percentage
Tn = time for the nth unit
T1-n = time for the first nth units

t. f. = time factor from Table 7S-1

Unit time factors are < 1.000
Total time factors are > 1.000

1.

n = 18, P = 80%, T1 = 300 hr.

a. fifth unit: T1 unit t.f.
= 300 .596 = 178.8 hr.
b. units 1-5: T1 total t.f.
= 300 3.738 = 1,121.4 hr.
c. units 1-18: T1 total t.f. = 300 9.716 = 2,914.8 hr.

2.

[T4 = T2 (P) = T1 (P)(P) = T1 (P2)], T1 = 80 hr.

a. P = 72%: T4 = 80(.722) = 41.47 hr.
b. P = 87%: T4 = 80(.872) = 60.55 hr.
c. P = 95%: T4 = 80(.952) = 72.20 hr.

3.

P = 85%
T1 = 8 days
a. T1 total t.f. 10 = 8 7.116 = 56.928 days
b. T1 (total t.f.20 total t.f.10)
= 8 (12.402 7.116)
= 42.288 days
c. T1 (total t.f.30 total t.f.20)
= 8 (17.091 12.402)
= 37.512 days

4.

P = 82%
T1 = 20 hours
Tn = T1 nb
(Formula 7S-1)
ln (P/100)
b=
ln 2
T3 = 20 (31n.82/1n2)
= 20 (.7301)
= 14.60 hrs
T4 = 20 (41n.82/1n2)
= 20 (4-.2863)
= 20 .6724
= 13.448 hrs
(Alternatively, T4 = T1 P2 = 20 (0.82) 2 = 13.448)

Operations Management, 4/C/E

5.

a.

b = -.2339
P = 1002b = 100 2-.2339 = 85.03%
b. Given n = 30, and P = 85%,
Avg. unit time = T1 total. t. f. / 30
46(17.091)
=
= 26.2 minutes
30
6.

T1 = 50 min.
P = 70%
T2-4 = ?
T1-4 = T1 total t. f. 4 = 50 2.758 = 137.9
T2-4 = T1-4 - T1 = 137.9 50 = 87.9 min., or about 1 hrs.

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

7.

T1-4 = 600 hr.

P = 75%
T1 unknown
T5-6 = ?
(i) Find T1: T1-4 = T1 total t. f. 1-4 = T1 2.946 = 600 hrs.

Solving, T1 = 203.666 hrs.

(ii) T5-6 = T1 (total t. f. 6 total t. f. 4) = 203.666 (3.934 2.946) = 201.222 hrs.

8.

n = 25
T5 = 14.5 hrs.
P = 90%
T1 unknown
a. T25 = ?
Find T1: T5 = T1 unit t. f. 5 14.5 = T1 0.783
Solving, T1 = 18.52 hrs.
T25 = T1 unit t. f. 25 = 18.52 0.613 = 11.35 hrs.
b. T10 = T5 P = 14.5 .90 = 13.05 hrs.
(Alternatively, T10 = T1 unit t. f. 10 = 18.52 0.705 = 13.057 hrs.)
c. Avg. time per unit = T1-25 / 25
= T1 total t. f. 25 / 25
= 18.52 17.713 / 25
= 13.12 hrs.

9.

n = 20
Labour: $8.50/hr.
Setup: $50
Material: $20/unit
P = 90%
Overhead: 50% of total labour, material & setup cost
T1 = 5 hrs.
Avg. cost for 20 units?
T1-20 = T1 total t. f. 20 = 5 14.608 = 73.04 hrs.
costs:
Labour:
73.04 hr. @ $8.50/hr.
$620.84
Setup:
50.00
Material:
20 units @ $20/unit
400.00
$1,070.84
Overhead: 50% of $1,070.84
Total Cost:
$1,606.26
Average cost =
= $80.31
20

$1,070.84
535.42
$1,606.26

Operations Management, 4/C/E

10.

11.

Standard: 6th repetition 6 hours

A
B
C
1st
9
10
12
2nd
8
8
9
3rd
4th
5th
6th
?
?
?
P=
8 / 10 = .80
9 / 12 = .75
8/9 = .89 .90
T6 = T1 unit t. f. 6 9 .762 = 6.86 10 .562 = 5.62
12 .475 = 5.7
Thus, B and C will meet the standard

T1 = 40 hrs.
P = 88%
T2 to T5?
Using Formula 7S-1, Tn = T1 nb
b = ln(P/100) / ln(2) = ln(.88) / ln(2) = -0.1278 / 0.6931 = -0.1844
nb
0.880
0.817
0.774
0.743

n
2
3
4
5

12.

Tn = T1 nb
35.20 hrs
32.68
30.98
29.72

n=5
T1 = 12 hrs.
P = 77%
T2-5 ?
b = 1n(.77) / 1n(2) = -0.2614 / 0.6931 = -0.3771
n
2
3
4
5
Total

nb
.770
.661
.593
.545

Tn = T1 nb
9.24
7.93
7.11
6.54
30.82 hrs.

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

13.

P = 82%?

b = -.092
P = 1002b = 1002-.092 = 93.8%
No, the learning % is approx. 94%.
14. n = 10
T5 = 5 hrs.
P = 75%
T6-10 -2?
T1 = T5 / unit t. f. 5
= 5 / .513 = 9.7466 hrs.
T6 = T1 unit t. f. 6 = 9.7466 .475 = 4.63 hrs.
T7 = T1 unit t. f. 7 = 9.7466 .446 = 4.35 hrs.
T8 = T1 unit t. f. 8 = 9.7466 .422 = 4.11 hrs.
T9 = T1 unit t. f. 9 = 9.7466 .402 = 3.92 hrs.
T10 = T1 unit t. f. 10 = 9.7466 .385 = 3.75 hrs.
T6-10 -2 = (4.63 2) + 4.35 + 4.11 + 3.92 + 3.75 = 18.76 hrs.
15.

n ? to get Tn = 7
n = e [ln(Tn) ln(T1)] / b;

Formula 7S-6:

ln(7) = 1.9459

First calculate bs:

Trainee
Art
Sherry
Dave

T1
11
10.5
12

Now, calculate ns:

Trainee
T1
Art
11
Sherry
10.5
Dave
12

T2
9.9
8.4
10.2
ln(T1)
2.3979
2.3514
2.4849

P/100 = T2 T1
.90
.80
.85

ln(7) ln(T1)

-.45198
-.4055
-.539

b = ln(P/100) / ln(2)
ln .9 / ln 2 = -.152
ln .8 / ln 2 = -.322
ln .85 / ln 2 = -.234

[ln(7) ln(T1)] / b

2.9737
1.2593
2.3034

n = e[ln(7) ln(T1)] / b
19.56 20
3.52 4
10

Operations Management, 4/C/E

Alternatively, obtain n from Table 7S-1 based on the appropriate P and unit time columns. For
example, for Art unit time factor should be T n / T1 = 7 / 11 = .636. Under P = 90%, the closest
unit time factors are 19 (unit t. f. = .639) and 20 (unit t. f. = .634).
16.

n? to get Tn = 18 min.
T1 = 30 min.
T2 = 25 min.
First estimate P/100 = T2 / T1 = 25 / 30 = .833
The, calculate b = ln(P/100) / ln(2) = ln(.8333) / ln(2) = -.263
Finally, use Formula 7S-6:
n = e [ln(Tn) ln(T1)] / b = e [ln(18) ln(30)] / -.263 = e [2.89 3.4] / -.263= e1.94 = 6.96 round to 7

17.

n? to get Tn = 25 min. ln(25) = 3.2189

Trainee
Tracy
Darren
Lynn

T1
36
40
37

T2
31
36
30

Now, calculate ns:

Trainee
T1
Tracy
36
Darren
40
Lynn
37

18.

P/100 = T2 T1
.86
.90
.81

ln(T1)
3.5835
3.6889
3.6109

b = ln(P/100) ln(2)
ln .86 ln 2 = -.2176
ln .90 ln 2= -.152
ln .81 ln 2 = -0.304

ln(25) ln(T1)

[ln(25) ln(T1)] / b

-.3646
-.4700
-.3920

1.6756
3.092
1.2895

n = e[ln(7) ln(T1)] / b
5.34 5
22.02 22
3.63 4

n? to get Tn = 19 min.
First, we need to find the b:

b = -.409 from Excel

Formula 7S-6:
n = e [ln(Tn) ln(T1)] / b = e [ln(19) ln(55)] / -.409 = e [2.944 4.007] / -.409= e2.6= 13.46 round to 13
It will take 13 8 = 5 more searches until search time is reduced to 19 min.

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

19.

b = -.2887
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.2887 = 81.86%

Operations Management, 4/C/E

20.

b = -.248
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.248 = 84.21%

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

21.

Before off days:

b = -.389
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.389 = 76.4%
After off days:
b = -.191
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.191 = 87.6%
Note that after off days, initially there was some relearning (note that the 17-21 minute time for
repetitions 1-3 after off days is larger than 15-16 minute time for repetitions 6-7 before off days). But
soon the subject reduced the time to 15-17 minutes and even less. However, learning was weaker after the
off days (i.e., had flatter learning slope 87.6% vs 76,4% before the off days). There was carryover effect:
the subject started with experience and found it harder to learn more.

10

Operations Management, 4/C/E

22.

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

11

SGL 3A:
b = -.213
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.213 = 86.3%
SGL 3B:
b = -.376
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.376 = 77.1%
SGL 2A:
b = -.181
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.181 = 88.2%
SGL 2B:
b = -.186
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.186 = 87.9%
Building 3B has a larger learning effect (i.e., steeper slope 77.1%) than the other 3 buildings (86-88%
learning %). Any further interpretation requires more specific information.

23.

b = -.542
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.542 = 68.9%
Yes, there is significant learning (the slope is very steep).
12

Operations Management, 4/C/E

24.

P = 74%?
b = ln(P/100) / ln (2) = ln(.74) / ln(2) = -.4344
y = a xb = a x-.4344
One point on the dashed curve: e.g., (200, 1000)
Substitute this point in the power function above: 1000 = a (200) -.4344 = a (.1) a = 10,000
Now, check another point on the dashed curve, e.g., (30, 2300) [Note: 2,300 is an approximation]
10,000(30)-.4344 = 2,282 which is close enough to 2,300.

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

13

25.

T.B.

b = -.212 P = 100 2b = 100 2-.212 = 86.3%

CHUQ

b = -.138 P = 100 2b = 100 2-.138 = 90.9%

T.B. is learning slightly more than CHUQ (86.3 < 90.9), but it can reduce its time much more (to
below 100 minutes that CHUQ has reached).

14

Operations Management, 4/C/E

26.

Expert = 2 minutes = 120 seconds = Tn

From Excel, use T1 = 298.23 and b = -.483

n = e [ln(Tn) ln(T1)] / b = e [ln(120) ln(298.23)]

= e [4.7875 5.6979)]

/ -.483

/-.483

= e1.885 = 6.59 round to 7 (as seen on the chart).

However, 7 is the expected number of repetitions before becoming an expert. To allow for
variations, more repetitions are necessary. For example, the data indicates 10 repetitions are
needed before the actual average times stay below 120 seconds.
Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

15

27.

Standard = 24th unit

T24 = 161 hrs
P = 80%
n = 30
a. T1-30 = ?
First we have to determine T1:
T24 = T1 (t.f. 24)
161 = T1 (.359)
[from Table 7S-1]
T1 = 448.47 hrs
Now, T1-30 = T1 (Total t.f. 30)
= 448.47 (14.02)
= 6,287.55 hrs

[from Table 7S-1]

b. 30 hours of work for the 24th unit

= 30 /.359 = 83.57 hrs for the 1st unit
Savings in work
= T16-30 = 83.57 (Total t.f. 30 Total t.f. 15)
= 83.57 (14.02 8.511) = 460.39 hrs
Extra new work
= (time at the 16th unit) (Total t.f. 15)
= (30 hrs at 24th / t.f. 24-16)(Total t.f. 15)
= (30 / .512)(8.511) = 498.69 hrs
New T1-30

= 6,287.55 - 460.39 + 498.69 = 6,325.85 hrs

Note: the new total hrs is larger.

16

Operations Management, 4/C/E

28.

b = -.105 P = 100 2b = 100 2-.105 = 93%

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

17

29.

The learning effect is small because this is a short cycle mass production case.
n = 30
PFab = 90%
PAss = 85%
T20, Fab = 100 hrs
T20, Ass = 75 hrs
T1-30 = ?
T20, Fab = T1, Fab (t.f. 20): 100 = T1, Fab (.634) T1, Fab = 157.73 hrs
T20, Ass = T1, Ass (t.f. 20): 75 = T1, Ass (.495) T1, Ass = 151.52 hrs
T1-30, Fab = T1, Fab (Total t.f. 30) = 157.73 (20.727) = 3,269.27 hrs
T1-30, Ass = T1, Ass (Total t.f. 30) = 151.51 (17.091) = 2,589.46 hrs
T1-30 = 5,858.73 hrs

30.

Fourth Lot avg hours = 9743.9(50)-.325 = 2,732.55 hrs

Total time of fourth lot = 2,732.55(40) = 109,302 hrs

18

Operations Management, 4/C/E

31.

a.

b = -.135 P = 100 2b = 100 2-.135 = 91%

No, 91% represents too small of a learning effect for airplane manufacturing. Likely, a
large portion of the avg. price to Israel is profit and recovery of the R&D costs
b.

Cost of 848th unit = 301.68(848)-.135 = $121.4 million

Total cost to Canada = 65(121.4) = $7,891 billion

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

19

Product Recall Mini-case

1.

Questions that need to be addressed in order to analyze this case:

a. The recall
1) What is the expected number of recalled cars to each dealer?
2) Over what time interval will repairs be made (i.e., is there a time limit)?
b. The manufacturer
1) How many repairs did the engineers make to establish an average repair time?
2) Were company repair conditions similar to those of a dealership (e.g., tools, equipment,
methods)?
3) How much similar work had engineers done prior to this?
4) What were the hours for the initial unit?
c. The dealership
1) Were the mechanics familiar with this type of repair work?

2.

a. There seems to be a significant disparity between the engineers learning rate (90%) and the
mechanics rate (7.2 / 9.6 = 75%).
b. Paying a fixed rate for repairs has pros and cons. On the plus side, the manufacturer and the
dealer can determine the cost of repairs. On the minus side, as the number of repairs
increases, the cost per repair will decrease. This favours larger and urban dealers.
c. Each mechanic would need to repair at least 24 cars (9.6 total t. f. 75%, 24 / 24 = 9.6 9.928 /
24 = 3.97 4 hours $22 $88) for the companys offer of $88 per repair to be acceptable to
the dealer.
The dealer is using n = 12 in its calculations:
avg time = T1 total t. f. 75%, 12 / 12 = 9.6 6.315 / 12 = 5.05 5 hours $22 $110
d. If more than one mechanic does the work, each would have to repair 24 cars.
e. Can we assume that the learning rate will be 75% at all dealers?

3.

Discussion and comments on major points:

a. Dealers would do best to limit one or a few mechanics to do repairs.
b. Collect more data from company and other dealerships before concluding average time of 4
or 5 hours is appropriate.
c. Determine how similar repairs for different model years are.
d. Work out a fair plan taking into account size of dealership/number of repairs expected.

20

Operations Management, 4/C/E

Learning Curve in Surgery Mini-case

Unilateral:
b = -.247
P = 100 2b = 100 2-..247 = 84.3%
Bilateral:
b = -.137
P = 100 2b = 100 2-.137 = 90.9%
Compare: Bilateral has a smaller learning effect.
Reasons could include:
- less repetition
- more complex procedure
- more variety

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

21

Renovating the Lions Gate Bridge Case

Teaching Note by Professor C. William Wedley
Synopsis: Deck replacement for Lions Gate Bridge is only 10/54 complete, yet it is already past the date
when it was supposed to be finished. Penalty clauses are possible, extra closures are predicted, and public
criticism is high. Project staff at American Bridge/Surespan is confronted with the need to estimate how
long it will take to replace each additional bridge section. Those times are necessary for determining a
better project schedule than heretofore used on the project.
Why Use This Case? The case exposes students to the murky area of scheduling. In project
management, the three key criteria for success are: on-time delivery, at or below budget and above
specified quality levels. All three elements of these attributes are present in this case, although the main
focus is on the first criterion, on-time delivery. American Bridge/Surespan, like all major project firms,
uses project management planning tools to schedule work modules and resources. In this case, the work
modules are the replacement of each bridge section. In order to enter reliable information into the project
schedule, it is first necessary to estimate times for each work module. Learning curve analysis is one
obvious technique, but the variability in the tasks for some panels makes it less than ideal. Accordingly,
some type of modified or heuristic approach is needed. The answer guide presented herein gives such a
modified answer.
Possible Assignment
Prepare: LIONS GATE BRIDGE
Read: Learning Curves
Project scheduling
Teaching Aids:
LIONS GATE BRIDGE TN.XLS -- Excel Worksheets that contain the data, a sample answer to the
scheduling problem, and the true times which became available later. This way, users of this case will be
able to receive feedback regarding how close their estimates are to the actual times. If desired, a contest
could be set up in class to see who is the most accurate.
Purpose: Scheduling is a major component of project management. While optimizing mathematical
techniques can be useful in scheduling problems, the usual situation is that compromises and adjustments
must be made. The Lions Gate Bridge case brings this fact to the forefront. It is fairly obvious that the
project team is learning how to improve its time as each additional section is installed. In such cases,
learning curve calculations are very helpful. Yet a learning curve by itself is insufficient, because the
construction conditions are variable (over land vs. over water, difficult lifts near towers, different
installation procedures, etc.). In such a situation, straight reliance on a learning curve will be insufficient.
This case illustrates to students that prudent judgment is still needed. Possibly a learning curve
supplemented with judgment is the best way to proceed.
Questions:
1. Given the data on the replacement of the first 10 panels, is there any evidence that the work team is
learning how to make faster installations?
2. What techniques can be used to estimate how long it will take to perform each of the remaining
installations?
3. How long will it take to perform each of the remaining installations?
4. What allowances will have to be made for factors such as (1) installations next to towers, (2) longer
vertical lifts over water and (3) different installation procedures for Panels 37-54?

22

Operations Management, 4/C/E

CASE ANALYSIS
The American Bridge/Surespan Joint Venture has now completed 10 of 54 sections of the re-decking
project for Lions Gate Bridge. Scheduling for this project is crucial, because the repair work is being
conducted while the bridge is still in use. Sections of deck are cut out and removed, and new, wider
sections are replaced. Each time a section is cut out and replaced, the bridge is inoperative and the public
is inconvenienced. Therefore, the bridges downtime has to be kept to a minimum.
Compounding the problem is (1) the existence of penalty costs for closures and late delivery, (2) the need
to respect the safety of the public, workers and the bridge, and (3) the necessity to bolster public
confidence in the company, other contractors and the government. Good scheduling is important to all
these objectives.
American Bridge/Surespan has the task of estimating how long each subsequent section will take. Those
estimates can then be fed into a project scheduling technique like the critical path method to ascertain the
overall completion date. As well, those data are used to determine the date and times for bridge closures.
That, in turn, determines expected penalty costs.
One way to proceed to get estimates is to use the present information to calculate a learning curve rate
(i.e., percentage/100). With that in hand, future expected times can be calculated for subsequent sections.
That by itself, however, will not be enough. It is known that some of the future sections have specific
installation problems that affect installation time. While the learning curve result can be the starting point
for estimation, adjustments must be made for the peculiarities of the section being installed.
The Learning Curve Rate
The classic definition of a learning curve is that there is a percentage reduction in time, dollars, etc. when
experience doubles. Thus, if Ti is the measure of time, cost, etc., for the ith unit, then the learning curve
rate can be estimated by
T2/T1,

T4/T2,

T6/T3,

T8/T4

etc.

The case material tells us that Panel 1 took 14 hours and Panel 2 (which encountered problems) took 26
hours. Therefore, we could say that although there was learning for those two panels, it was not reflected
in the installation time (since T2/T1>1).
For the other 8 panels, this doubling approach indicates the following learning rates:
T4/T2
T6/T3
T8/T4
T10/T5

= 13.8 / 26.0 = .53

= 10.4 / 17.4 = .60
= 9.0 / 13.8 = .65
= 19.0 / 12.6 = 1.50

Obviously, the learning rates T4/T2 and T10/T5 are suspect, because T2 and T10 had unusual complications
associated with being adjacent to a tower or having frozen expansion joints. The other figures indicate
that the learning improvement may be as high as 40% (i.e. when experience doubles, the time drops to
about 60% of the previous time).
More generally, the classic learning curve is defined as
Tn = T1 nb

(1)

where b = ln (P) / ln 2

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

23

Using some simple mathematics, we can calculate learning curve rate P for any n:
Tn = T1 nb

nb =

Tn
T1

Tn
/ ln n
T1

ln (P) / ln 2 = ln

Tn

T1

b ln n = ln

Tn
/ ln n
T1

b = ln

Tn
. ln 2 / ln n
T1

ln (P) = ln

Tn
. ln 2 / ln n }
T1

P = exp {ln

(2)

As indicated above, we have these data for the first 10 panels that were installed. Therefore, we can
calculate nine learning curve rates, one for each section from 2 to 10. These rates are given in Table 1-tn.
In Table 1-tn, the column entitled Log of Learning Rate is calculated using equation (2). Taking the
antilog of this column gives the learning curve rates in the next column entitled Estimated Learning
Rate. Those figures greater than 1 indicate no learning. The others less than 1 indicate that the learning
rate may be between .86 and .99. The average of those less than 1 is .918.
Table 1 tn

Panel#

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Actual
Time
(Hours)

14.0
26.0
17.4
13.8
12.6
10.4
10.0
9.0
10.6
19.0

Lift conditions

Land, At Tower
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Land, At Tower
Land, At Tower

Learning curve Estimates using .918 as the learning rate.

Learning Curve
Rate

Log of LC
Rate

0.918

-0.1234339

Gantt
Estimate Learning Curve
Panel size (hours)
Estimate

20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
10 m
10 m

15.0
15.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
11.5
10.0
10.0
9.8
14.0

14.0
12.9
12.2
11.8
11.5
11.2
11.0
10.8
10.7
10.5
10.4

Deviation

0
13.1
5.2
2.0
1.1
-0.8
-1.0
-1.8
-0.1
8.5
26.3

Log of
Learning Rate

0.2688
0.0599
-0.0027
-0.0194
-0.0499
-0.0521
-0.0640
-0.0379
0.0399
Avg. of P4-9

Estimated
Learning Rate

1.857
1.148
0.994
0.956
0.891
0.887
0.863
0.917
1.096
0.918

If a learning curve rate is placed in the cell immediately below the cell entitled Learning Curve Rate,
then the numbers in the Learning Curve Estimate column are calculated via equation (1). In Table 1tn, the average Estimated Learning Rate for Panels 4 to 9 (.918) has been used. Notice that except for
Panels 2, 3 and 10, the Deviation of estimated from actual time is within 2.0 hours.

24

Operations Management, 4/C/E

Table 2-tn

Panel#

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

Actual
Time
(Hours)

14.0
26.0
17.4
13.8
12.6
10.4
10.0
9.0
10.6
19.0

Extrapolation of Learning Curve Estimates with LC = .903

Lift conditions

Panel size

Land, At Tower
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Land, At Tower
Land, At Tower
Land and Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Water, At Tower
Water, At Tower
Over Water
spliced
Over Water
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land

20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
10 m
10 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m

20 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
12 m

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

Learning Curve
Rate

Log of LC
Rate

0.903

-0.14720211

Gantt
Estimate Learning Curve
(hours)
Estimate

15.0
15.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
10.5
10.0
10.0
9.75
10.0

14.0
12.6
11.9
11.4
11.0
10.8
10.5
10.3
10.1
10.0
9.8
9.7
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8

Deviation

0
13.358
5.5
2.4
1.6
-0.4
-0.5
-1.3
0.5
9.0
7.8

Log of
Learning Rate

0.2688
0.0599
-0.0027
-0.0194
-0.0499
-0.0521
-0.0640
-0.0379
0.0399
Avg. of P4-9
Avg. of P5-9

Estimated
Learning Rate

1.857
1.148
0.994
0.956
0.891
0.887
0.863
0.917
1.096
0.918
0.903

25

A third procedure to determine the learning curve rate is to use Excels Goal Seek function to minimize
the sum of all deviations. As shown in Table 1-tn, this amount for a learning curve rate of .918 is 26.3. If
this number (26.3) is minimized to be zero, then the learning curve rate rises to above 1 (indicating no
learning). The reason for this is that Panels 2 and 10 had special problems that made their times
abnormally long. If the deviations for these panels are eliminated from the sum of deviations, then the
Goal Seek learning curve rate is .939.
Extrapolating the Learning Curve Estimates
As shown for Panel 11 in Table 1-tn, the Learning Curve Estimate can be estimated for Panels that have
not yet been installed. In order to do this, the analyst must select an appropriate learning curve rate to
insert in the worksheet (shown as .918 in Table 1-tn). As can be seen from the data listed above, the
learning curve rate may be anywhere from .60 to .94. Also, the analyst must be confident that the time for
the first unit is representative of the true time with no learning.
Given the times for Panels 2 and 3, it would appear that Panel 1 was completed in excellent time.
Perhaps, fortuitously, it is lower time than what is typical for a first effort. If we use such a figure for the
first unit, then the selected learning curve rate should not be as high as T 4/T2, T6/T3, or T8/T4 where the
base is always above T1. Accordingly, the average learning curve rate for Panels 5-9 has been selected as
the Learning curve rate for Table 2-tn. This is .903. As can be seen from the results, the theoretical time
(after learning) for Panel 54 is 7.8 hours.
Adjustments for Extraneous Factors
The estimated times in Table 2-tn are inappropriate, because we know that certain sections (adjacent to
towers, over water, etc.) will take longer time. In order to handle this factor, adjustments can be made to
the base Learning Curve Estimate. Table 3-tn presents such adjustments.
The first adjustment is for Panel 11 that is to be inserted on the south side of the north Tower. Five extra
hours have been allocated for keeping the panel away from the tower during the lowering and lifting
process and for inserting the segment.
From Panels 14 to 34, an extra hour has been added to the learning curve time to account for the slightly
more difficult and longer lift from the water. Panels 35 and 36 are over water and at towers. An extra
allowance of 6 hours has been assigned. Panels 37 and 38 are over water and behind the south tower.
They are spliced together to be installed as a single unit and they can only be installed at high tide. An
extra 2 hours has been allowed for the difficult access and the horizontal shifting.
Panels 39 to 53 are the most uncertain. Since they are removed and delivered by waiting trucks, there is
no need for the lengthy lift with the travelling jacker. Thus, some time is saved. Nevertheless, the need
to lift and turn the sections in tight quarters means that extra time may be required. Accordingly, an extra
hour has been allowed for each of these panels. In some respects, Panels 39 to 53 can be considered as a
new learning curve.
The final panel, #54 is also difficult. Both removal and delivery is from the south abutment. As well, it is
a long panel. An extra 6 hours is anticipated for installation.

26

Operations Management, 4/C/E

Table 3-tn Adjustments to the Learning Curve

Panel#

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

Actual
Time
(Hours)

14.0
26.0
17.4
13.8
12.6
10.4
10.0
9.0
10.6
19.0

Lift conditions

Panel size

Land, At Tower
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Over Land
Land, At Tower
Land, At Tower
Land and Water
Land and Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Over Water
Water, At Tower
Water, At Tower
Over Water
spliced
Over Water
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks
From Trucks

20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
10 m
10 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
20 m
10 m
10 m
10 m 20 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
20 m

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

Learning Curve
Rate

Log of LC
Rate

0.903

-0.1472021

Gantt
Estimate Learning Curve Adjustment
(hours)
Estimate
Amount

15.0
15.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
10.5
10.0
10.0
9.8
10.0

Adjsuted
Estimates

14.0
12.6
11.9
11.4
11.0
10.8
10.5
10.3
10.1
10.0
9.8
9.7
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3

5.0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6

14.8
9.7
9.6
10.5
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.0
9.9
9.9
9.8
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.3
14.3
14.3

8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8

2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6

10.2
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.8
13.8

Explanation

at tower

longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
longer lift
lift at tower
lift at tower
behind tower
and spliced
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
from trucks
south access

27

Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers

1. Given the data on the replacement of the first 10 panels, is there any evidence that the work team is
learning how to make faster installations?
The work teams have definitely learned how to perform the work faster as a consequence of their
experience with the first 10 panels. Although there are some longer times (Panels 2 and 10) where
special problems occurred, the tendency is for the installation times to decline. Although learning has
taken place, it is not clear whether the learning curve rate is .60 or .90.
It would be prudent for management to continue calculating the learning curve rate as additional panels
are installed. That way, greater confidence can be gained regarding the true learning rate.
2.

What techniques can be used to estimate how long it will take to perform each of the remaining
installations?

A number of techniques are available to estimate installation times. These vary from (1) pure intuition,
(2) educated guesses, (3) learning curve calculations, (4) simulation, and (5) multiple regression. No one
of those techniques is adequate by itself.
The technique chosen in this teaching guide is to use an adjusted learning curve. The learning curve is
used to generate a base rate. That base rate is then adjusted for special problems that are anticipated to
have a bearing on the required time.
Another approach is for management to consider the whole project to consist of three different learning
curves. The first would be 10 panels already installed from land. The next learning curve would be from
Panels 11 to 38 that are installed from water. Then Panels 39 to 54 could be considered another learning
curve, insofar as they are installed from trucks. The difficult sections at towers could be considered as
special cases.

3.

How long will it take to perform each of the remaining installations?

The adjusted learning curve indicates that the remaining sections will take from 8.8 to 14.8 hours to
complete. The 8.8 hours is for the second from last panel. The 14.8 hours is for the next panel, #11. In
part, the decline in estimated time reflects the learning factor.

4.

What allowances will have to be made for factors such as (1) installations next to towers, (2) longer
vertical lifts over water and (3) different installation procedures for Panels 37 to 54.

The allowances are based upon expert judgment. Table 3-tn shows a set of reasonable adjustments. They
are added to the base learning curve estimates to reflect the special circumstances associated with
certain installations.

28

Operations Management, 4/C/E

Feedback
Actual times, American Surespans Gantt times and the adjusted Learning Curve times for the project are
presented in the following table.

Panel#

Lift conditions

Actual
Time
(Hours)

1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

Land, At Tower, 10 m.
Land and Water, 20 m.
Land and Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Over Water, 20 m.
Water, At Tower, 10 m.
Water, At Tower, 10 m.
Over Water, 10 m.
Over Water, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 10 m.
From Trucks, 20 m.

?
?
11.00
11.00
10.75
10.75
9.50
8.50
9.70
9.00
8.00
9.00
10.85
9.80
10.00
10.40
9.75
7.50
8.50
8.00
7.75
7.40
8.75
8.20
16.30
15.50
spliced
12.50
18.60
11.80
10.50
10.20
8.45
8.80
8.25
8.45
8.80
9.25
8.30
9.25
10.50
11.50
11.50
16.40

AVG. =
Max
Min

10.2
18.6
7.4

American
Surespan's
Gantt Estimate
(hours)

Gantt Error
(Est. - Act.)

Adjusted
Learning
Curve

Adjusted LC
Error (Est. Act.)

% Error with
Gantt Est.

% Error with
Adjusted LC

11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.5
10.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
10.0
12.0

0.00
0.00
0.25
0.25
0.50
1.50
-0.70
0.00
1.00
-0.50
-0.85
-1.30
-1.50
-1.90
-1.25
1.00
0.00
0.50
0.75
1.10
-0.25
0.30
-6.30
-3.50

14.8
9.7
9.6
10.5
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.0
9.9
9.9
9.8
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.3
14.3
14.3

-1.4
-0.5
-0.4
-0.4
0.7
1.6
0.4
1.0
1.9
0.9
-1.0
0.0
-0.3
-0.7
-0.1
2.1
1.0
1.5
1.7
2.01
0.62
1.13
-2.00
-1.24

0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
2.3%
5.3%
17.6%
7.2%
0.0%
12.5%
5.6%
7.8%
13.3%
15.0%
18.3%
12.8%
13.3%
0.0%
6.3%
9.7%
14.9%
2.9%
3.7%
38.7%
22.6%

12.8%
4.6%
3.3%
4.1%
7.6%
19.4%
3.9%
11.2%
24.3%
9.8%
9.5%
0.3%
2.8%
7.1%
1.3%
27.6%
12.1%
18.6%
21.9%
27.1%
7.1%
13.8%
12.3%
8.0%

19.0
18.0
11.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
13.0

6.50
-0.60
-0.80
-0.50
-0.20
1.55
1.20
1.75
1.55
1.20
0.75
1.70
0.75
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-3.40

10.2
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.8
13.8

-2.30
-9.44
-2.67
-1.40
-1.12
0.60
0.22
0.74
0.52
0.14
-0.33
0.59
-0.38
-1.65
-2.67
-2.70
-2.62

52.0%
3.2%
6.8%
4.8%
2.0%
18.3%
13.6%
21.2%
18.3%
13.6%
8.1%
20.5%
8.1%
4.8%
4.3%
4.3%
20.7%

18.4%
50.7%
22.6%
13.3%
11.0%
7.1%
2.5%
9.0%
6.1%
1.6%
3.6%
7.2%
4.1%
15.7%
23.3%
23.4%
16.0%

10.2
19.0
8.5

6.5
-6.3

9.8
14.3
8.8

2.1
-9.4

11.1%
52.0%
0.0%

12.3%
50.7%
0.3%

Instructors Manual, Chapter 7 Supplement

29

As can be seen, from looking at the columns, there is considerable error in some of the estimates. The
Gantt estimates vary from 6.3 hours underestimation to 6.5 hours overestimation. For the adjusted
Learning Curve the underestimation is as high as 9.4 hours to 2.1 hours overestimation. The average
absolute percentage error is about 11% for Gantt estimates and 12% for the adjusted Learning Curve
estimates.
The following is a plot of the actual, Gantt, and adjusted Learning Curve times. As can be seen the major
errors for the learning curve is around the panels 35 to 39, around the south tower and the start of the
panels that are installed from above. Looking at the graph, it would appear that there are two learning
curves in effect one up to the south tower and another afterwards with installing the sections from
above.

Actual and Estimated Panel Times

Actual time

19.00

Adj LC time
Actual and Estimated Times

17.00

Gantt Time

15.00
13.00
11.00
9.00
7.00
10

12

14

16

18 20

22

24 26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42 44

46

48 50

52

54

Panel No.

It is useful to give users of the case feedback regarding the accuracy of their estimates. Calculating both
the percentage and absolute deviations their estimates are away from the actual times can do this. As
well, their performances can be compared to the Gantt and adjusted Learning Curve estimates. If their
estimates are better, they can be proud of their superior performance.
If desired, student accuracy measures can be used in a class competition.

30

Operations Management, 4/C/E