How to Measure Project Complexity?

While it is easy to develop a feeling about project complexity (and thus unpredictability), having clear criteria for that purpose is more difficult. On the basis of available literature, we have developed a tentative set of criteria to determine the degree of complexity of a project, and thus anticipate the need for a different approach to project management and leadership. The result is available in our new White Paper 2021-01 ‘How to Measure Project Complexity?’

Complexity in a given system is directly related to the number of contributors and their alignment to the overall purpose. Complex as a concept is different from complicated. A complicated system can be quite reliable and predictable (such as a watch or a complicated industrial facility).

Complex systems demonstrate specific behaviours such as for example:

• Emerging properties (the system is more than the sum of its parts)
• Possible transitions of state that create deviations far beyond normal statistical deviations; thereby creating unpredictable outcomes.

Complex projects require different approaches than simple projects in terms of planning and management. Risk management also require specific approaches involving systemic approaches. In any case, complexity should aim to be minimised as much as possible at the onset and shaping phases of the project.

From the available literature, we have retained a set of criteria and built a scale to provide an idea of the complexity of an individual project.

Assessing project complexity is a difficult endeavour and not adequately addressed in existing literature. Based on our experience in combination with available literature we propose an operational scoring system to assess the actual complexity level of an industrial project. We plan to use this framework in the future to further refine it and ensure its applicability across multiple industrial project types and industries.

Read our new White Paper 2021-01 ‘How to Measure Project Complexity?’ for a method to assess project complexity.

If you can’t access the link to the white paper, copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://www.projectvaluedelivery.com/_library/2021-01_Complexity_Measure_v0.pdf

How to Overcome the Dangers of Facility Replication

From time to time, the duplication of an industrial facility is attempted, with the aim to reap economy of scale and gain schedule and cost performance by exploiting a learning curve. However, a number of parameters will prevent taking the expected benefit of such an approach. Our new White Paper 2020-11 ‘How to Overcome the Dangers of Facility Replication’ describes the key parameters to be considered by the Owner when the duplication of a facility is attempted so as to manage expectations about the actual gains that can be obtained.

In several industrial fields, series effects are measured to be very significant even on very complicated objects. Examples include shipbuilding (concept of sisterships), small series manufacturing such as trains, aircrafts and many other fields. The benefits of duplication is substantial and can lead to significant savings even with very short series of 2 or 3 copies. Savings include economies of scale on engineering, cost and schedule savings for the procurement of material and equipment and for construction of the plant, and further benefits during operations in terms of lessons learnt, mutualisation of spare parts and scale effects on maintenance and upgrade works.

It is thus natural that the same order of savings be sought also for industrial facilities through a replication approach. However, it often proves to be an illusion.

Issues that make facilities different include in order of controllability:

• Design improvement or change
• Industrial strategy (suppliers and subcontractors)
• Site-related factors
• Regulatory factors

Based on the analysis of all the aspect that will induce changes, it is safe to assume that in the realm of industrial facilities, true duplication is never fully achieved. Some degree of duplication will be achieved which can be measured in terms of percentage of facility value. The essential part is to achieve a duplication of the core process and, as much as possible, of the main utilities, and benefit from an effective learning curve from suppliers and contractors.

Measuring the actual degree of duplication is a way of managing expectations as to the actual benefits to be expected from the approach. Economies of scale and learning curve expectations should only be applied to the part of the facility that is effectively duplicated.

Duplicating an industrial facility and reaping the full benefits of a short series effect is much less straightforward than for manufacturing of complicated objects produced in short series.

Many factors conspire to make the new facility in reality quite different from its initial model. It is essential to have discipline to avoid as much as possible changes so as to reap at least a part of the economy of scale and learning curves. This requires a thought process that should start even prior to the first facility by implementing a design and contracting strategy that anticipates multiple facility constructions.

Read our new White Paper 2020-11 ‘How to Overcome the Dangers of Facility Replication’ to understand better the stumbling blocks of replication.

If you can’t access the link to the white paper, copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://www.projectvaluedelivery.com/_library/2020-11_dangers_replication_v0.pdf

How to Fight The Trap of Do-It-Yourself Approaches on Large Complex Projects

During our interventions we observe that too often, a default approach to difficulties in project is for project teams to intervene directly, what we call the ‘Do-It-Yourself’ approach. This observation applies both to owners and contractors. However, the consequences of such an approach are often underestimated. This behavior frequently results in poor performance, while dramatically increasing the workload and responsibilities of the project team. In our new White Paper 2020-10 ‘How to Fight The Trap of Do-It-Yourself Approaches on Large Complex Projects’ we explore the reasons for this behavior and what alternatives should be considered before reverting to this approach.

Contracting or subcontracting in projects is akin to delegating to a third-party part of the project execution responsibility. As with any delegation of work, this requires some measure of ‘letting go’ or detachment: work will not be performed exactly the way you would do it, but at the end it will work and be compliant with the expectations. When difficulties arise, it may be tough to just sit there and instruct the person or entity to which you have delegated the work on how to recover; there is a natural tendency to step in and do it yourself. The same psychological syndrome is at work on a larger scale on projects. Some project directors (in particular those that tend to be rather on the micro-control side of the management scale, or those that have held positions in the same specialty as the contractor) will not resist long before stepping in.

This is of course based (on the often incorrect) assumption that the project team is in a better position to do the work than the contractor; this syndrome thus appears more naturally on the assembly and construction project phases than on specialised supply of equipment.

The Do-It Yourself approach in projects necessarily leads to dealing with a much larger number of smaller contractors and contributors and therefore, setting up the required organisation to coordinate their work. It therefore increases the complexity level that must be managed at the project team level, and the associated requirements in terms of management and control.

Do-It Yourself approaches provide an illusion of control but on complex endeavours such as large, complex projects, generally fail unless there is a definite experience in dealing with the scope.

In general, a Do-It Yourself approach cannot be improvised, and it takes a robust system and project team to directly manage a multitude of contractors and contributors. Therefore, any consideration of such a project execution mode needs to be carefully assessed and substantial investments made in terms of people, processes and systems.

Read our new White Paper 2020-10 ‘How to Fight The Trap of Do-It-Yourself Approaches on Large Complex Projects’ to understand more about this syndrome and the associated precautions!

If you can’t access the link to the white paper, copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://www.projectvaluedelivery.com/_library/2020-10_Tendency_DIY_v0.pdf

How To Implement Project Processes in a ‘Virtual Project Setup’

We work in new and more ‘virtual’ ways, a development speeded up by the COVID-19 pandemic – and our ways of working will continue to change years to come. Project offices are not an exception. For the new large complex projects operating in a – to a large extent – remote work setting, transferring processes, and reporting to the virtual setup in an efficient way is key to success.

How do we need to work differently in this remote setting, and implement the tools and processes that supports this work?

In our new White Paper 2021-08 ‘How To Implement Project Processes in a ‘Virtual Project Setup’’ we share our experience of planning and implementing processes and reporting in large, complex projects run mostly virtually. They stem from our own experience, discussions in our network and our collaboration with clients who already start up these large, complex projects in the new highly virtual reality.

Virtual project execution produces new constraints that require a more structured approach to coordination and collaboration, as well as to project rituals. Change management needs to be more explicit and properly applied when needed. New processes and tools are required that allow better sharing of information throughout the team, re-enforcing the benefits of project visual management and the maintenance of shared, single source of truth on activities and progress data. The opportunity offered by the extended team and a further integration of projects beyond organizational boundaries can now be grasped and can offer substantial benefits in particular for very complex projects.

Read our new White Paper 2021-08 ‘How To Implement Project Processes in a ‘Virtual Project Setup’’ to understand in detail the challenges that need to be overcome and how to deal with them.

If you can’t access the link to the white paper, copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://www.projectvaluedelivery.com/_library/2021-08_Implementing_processes_virtual_setup_v0.pdf

How to Build Remote Project Teams in Project Start-Up Phase

We work in new and more ‘virtual’ ways, a development accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic – and our ways of working will continue to change in the years to come. Remote teams are today for many organisations a permanent change to work life that also implies a wider geographical spread – project offices are not an exception. As we face the complexity of multi-location and changes in work setting – from home or a different location than our organization’s main hub(s) – we need to reflect this change in the way we build our teams.

What does it take to transfer building efficient teams for large complex projects to a virtual setting?

In our new White Paper 2021-07 ‘Building Remote Project Teams in Project Start-Up Phase’ we share our experience of ‘building virtual teams’ in project start-up phases. They stem from our own experience, discussions in our network and our collaboration with clients who already start up these large, complex projects in the new highly virtual setting.

Remote work settings are not a new reality of large complex projects, but it is now seen at a much larger scale and with permanence. This has many implications on remote teams, especially in the early phases of the projects, when project goals, culture, ways of working and tools are being developed and incorporated in the project. Important and informal ‘coffee machine’ conversations will not happen and thereby the room to ‘wiggle’ things in place later in the project is reduced. Planning projects for remote work early in the project is essential for project success.

We have identified ‘key guidance’ for building remote project teams in early project phases:

• Mobilise the right people at the right time, and keep them motivated while dedicated to the project.
• Take charge explicitly of the culture and team formation – and ensure that the agreed culture is known to all project team members and kept alive.
• Facilitate the key virtual start-up meetings – in a virtual setting the success of the start-up activities is more dependent on planning and facilitation skills.

Read our new White Paper 2021-07 ‘Building Remote Project Teams in Project Start-Up Phase’ to understand better how to overcome the challenge of initiating a project in a remote situation.

If you can’t access the link to the white paper, copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://www.projectvaluedelivery.com/_library/2021-07_Remote_project_team_start-up_v0.pdf

How to Deliver Large Complex Projects Successfully in a World Changed by the Pandemic: ‘Guiding Stars’

The pandemic changed the way large complex projects are delivered. The impact of the COVID-19 in many ways accelerated pre-existing trends – like the need for new and better virtual meeting platforms and knowledge of how to use them efficiently – but also created unexpected consequences – like how it leads to permanent change in organizational culture. Organisations need to trust their employees to be both loyal and efficient in their new setting. Anticipable or not – it has added complexity to our working life.

What does it mean for the brave endeavor of large and complex projects, where the complexity of cross-function, cross border, new technologies and long timespans were already making it hard to succeed, or deliver in line with expectations?

Our new White Paper 2021-06 shares key learnings to provide useful ‘guiding stars’ for ’remote team projects’. They stem from our own experience, discussions in our network and our collaboration with clients who already navigate these large, complex projects in remote and highly virtual environment.

Large, complex projects will continue to be planned, led, engineered, procured, and constructed by people. However, these people will to a greater extent work in remote teams, where the team members will deliver from wherever they are – be that home, office, or other locations. This adds complexity to these already fragile projects.

To accommodate for continued safety focus, high quality and efficiency, keep the ‘guiding stars’ in mind when setting up our processes, systems, organisation and ways of working with our people:

• Plan and execute the project start-up carefully and thoroughly. It was important before, it is critical now,
• Enhance occasions for informal conversations and exchanges to emulate the ‘integrated team’ spirit,
• Seek synergies to mitigate risks connected to the pandemic situation,
• Visualise as much as possible to ease information flow and avoid information overload,
• Seek higher level of clarity to ensure nothing falls between chairs. Rework and recovery have become harder and must be avoided,
• Develop facilitation skills in the project teams to ensure that the right discussions take place at the right time with the right people and in the right format – and allowing timely and efficient decision. But also, that a culture of trust and openness is built to ensure efficient teamwork.

Read our new White Paper 2021-06 to better understand the challenges of remote project execution particularly for large, complex projects.

If you can’t access the link to the white paper, copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://www.projectvaluedelivery.com/_library/2021-06_Succeed_LCProject_delivery_pandemic_v0.pdf

How to Organise Projects Executed in Contractor Consortium or Joint-Venture

Following our White Paper [2020-08] on how best to setup governance for projects executed in consortium or Joint Venture, our new White Paper 2020-09 ‘How to Organise Projects Executed in Contractor Consortium or Joint-Venture’ investigates in more detail how to organise the project team itself for success. The key lies in the identification of those functions that require transverse monitoring and standardisation and having a sufficiently powerful common project team. Our new White Paper details those aspects and how they affect project performance and ultimate success.

The contractor’s project team is placed under the supervision of a Project Director and each contractor provides a team headed by a Project Manager and all relevant functions for its roles within the consortium management team and for its scope. In joint-venture situations it is more natural to build an integrated team, although, the project is often split in projects or packages that are delivered by one of the parties and its team members.

While the extent of interfaces will vary depending on the project and its scope, and how it is packaged between contractors, there will always be significant interfaces and commonalities that need to be managed across the different contractors. The effort required to manage those commonalities is too often underestimated during the planning / tendering phase and as a consequence, the roles required in the project team are overlooked, and the project start-up and detailed planning does not account for those activities. This creates substantial inefficiencies and can sometimes jeopardise the project.

Certain activities and functions will thus have to be planned and resourced to ensure that the common aspects of project realisation are properly addressed. Some of those activities and functions will actually require a transverse role across the teams of the various contractors that are party to the consortium or joint venture. Those are typically: project control, interface management, some aspects of engineering and sourcing standardisation, and some aspects of logistics, construction and commissioning coordination.

The need for transverse coordination of projects executed in contractor consortium or joint venture is too often underestimated or identified too late in the project. It is an important investment specifically at the project setup stage to ensure that the Project Director will remain fully in control of the project and so that each party has clear visibility on project and individual performance. Proper thought needs to be given to the practical organisation of this transverse team. Read our new White Paper 2020-09 ‘How to Organise Projects Executed in Contractor Consortium or Joint-Venture’ to understand better what needs to be done in this instance.

If you can’t access the link to the white paper, copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://www.projectvaluedelivery.com/_library/2020-09_Organise_projects_in_Contractor_consortium_or_JV_v0.pdf

Why do most Capital Projects end up being schedule-driven in execution?

Most capital projects end up being schedule-driven as they are decided and awarded at the last possible moment. Various reasons are often mentioned such as delays in decision-making, willingness to keep options open as much as possible, student’s syndrome or other reasons. This phenomenon is actually a natural consequence of the necessary trade-off between project framing and project definition. In our new White Paper 2020-07 ‘Why do most Capital Projects end up being schedule-driven in execution?’ we investigate the reasons for this situation and what can be done to avoid this trap.

Conventional wisdom and best practice for Capital Projects calls for the best possible definition level at Final Investment Decision stage and stability of the project scope during execution. This well-defined project is the result of an often long and comprehensive definition phase. At the same time, the objectives and the opportunity to which the project responds, being often a market-related opportunity or the need expressed by a client, are basically a bet on the future – and for large capital projects, on a future 3 to 5 years ahead. It makes sense to wait for the latest possible moment to have the maximum possible information on what can be expected in the future, and keep options open as long as possible.

This paradox between the need of a best-in-class definition and the intrinsic uncertainty of the bet taken when investing for a capital project results in the execution of most capital projects being de facto schedule-driven. This leads to technical or contractual strategy constraints leaving less flexibility or options, while increasing substantially the probability of disappointment due to delays compared to expectations.

A cost and benefit analysis could be performed to decide to what extent the decision to start the project should be delayed, compared to the benefits of delaying it. This appears to be rarely performed as such.

On one side, this analysis requires a quantification of the cost impact of the project’s schedule drive, and of the additional costs resulting from a lengthening of the definition phase. On the other side, the analysis requires a valuation of the benefits of delaying the decision or of shortening the execution time from the market perspective

The fact that industrial projects are often schedule-driven in execution is due to the expectation of Owners to wait as long as possible to improve their knowledge of market conditions when production will start. If there is no possibility to have long term supply agreements signed, this expected improved knowledge is often illusory. Owners should also be wary of unrealistic expectations in terms of project schedule caused by a pressure for shortening the project lead time. The cost-benefit analysis of shortening the execution phase of the project is often not performed with sufficient care, and we observe that sometimes schedule constraints could actually be relaxed to improve the return on investment, or that alternative approaches could be considered to make the design more modular and adaptable to future market conditions.

In any case Owners should be conscious of this issue and manage it properly so as not to cause project teams to manage unrealistic expectations from the start of project execution. Read our new White Paper 2020-07 ‘Why do most Capital Projects end up being schedule-driven in execution?’ to understand better this issue and how to weight the benefits of schedule-drive against other drawbacks.

If you can’t access the link to the white paper, copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://www.projectvaluedelivery.com/_library/2020-07_Why_most_capital_projects_schedule_driven_v0.pdf

How Essential It Is That the Owner Team Has Sufficient Project Experience For Project Success

In the same manner as successful projects require adequate governance, we also consistently observe that project success requires sufficiently experienced Owner organisations. Irrespective of the professionalism of the contractors, projects that are run with inexperienced or not sufficiently staffed Owners will often lead to inadequate delivery, delays and ultimately in disappointing results. In our new White Paper 2020-06 ‘How Essential It Is That the Owner Team Has Sufficient Project Experience For Project Success’ we investigate more in detail the causes of this phenomenon and what can be done to avoid it.

Inadequate Owner experience will translate into inadequate Owner supervision of the project, and substantial delays in taking decisions.

Relying on the experience of execution contractors to compensate for inadequate Owner experience is often not sufficient and the temptation of contractors to take advantage of the situation may be irresistible. Owners lacking experience may not be willing to delegate actual decision-making to contractors fearing commercial consequences, but may not actually take decisions either, or only very slowly, leading to very difficult situations. The issue is compounded when the Owner employs many contracted personnel of diverse origin rather than staff personnel in its project supervision team.

Owners may lack either of technical expertise, or project execution expertise, or both. Sometimes the Owner team budget is too restricted for proper quality personnel and associated capacity.

Projects conducted with inexperienced or insufficient Owner project management teams are often nightmares for all parties involved and often lead to substantial schedule and cost overruns. A sufficient level of experience on the Owner side – and the capability to take decisions based on this experience, is an essential success factor. A sufficient Owner team budget and agreement that properly experienced key resources must be hired staff personnel even if that bends usual HR policy are essential factors to achieve success. Read our new White Paper 2020-06 ‘How Essential It Is That the Owner Team Has Sufficient Project Experience For Project Success’ to understand more about this important issue.

If you can’t access the link to the white paper, copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://www.projectvaluedelivery.com/_library/2020-06_Owner_team_sufficient_project_experience_v0.pdf