Project Management: How to Overcome the Limitations of the Traditional Methods from the Industrial Age

Today more and more activities are carried out in project mode. However, the traditional project management approaches developed in the second half of the 20th century show strong limitations related to the complexity of the systems where projects take place. Well-identified practices related to complexity can be implemented to improve strategic piloting and project delivery management. This new White paper 2020-05 ‘Project Management: How to Overcome the Limitations of the Traditional Methods from the Industrial Age’ is a translation from a position paper developed for Welcome Complexity, a Non-Profit organisation based in France and focused on accounting for increased complexity in all human activities.

Project management, even if it has always existed, is a discipline formalised in the middle of the twentieth century, particularly within major defence projects, which required the coordination of multiple contributors (PERT approach: Program Evaluation and Review Technique). During the 1980s and 1990s, formal bodies of project management methods were institutionalised (Project Management Institute, International Project Management Association, etc.) with certifications based on standard project management approaches. Today, there is a profession of project managers around these standards, thus creating a “consensual professional ontology” (basic principles stabilised and not questioned), even though more and more activities are carried out in project mode.

Notwithstanding the formalisation of the approach and the increased professional development of project management specialists, all studies show that more than the majority of development projects, and often up to two thirds, significantly fail to deliver the expected benefits. They often cost much more or last much longer than expected; and sometimes deliver a facility that does not meet the initial production targets at all. This statistic applies to projects of all types and sizes and has not improved significantly in recent decades. It applies even when the context or measures of success of the project have not changed: the problem is intrinsic to the implementation of the projects.

These deviations are also much more significant when the project involves a large number of contributors and active stakeholders interacting with each other; this is often correlated with the size and ambition of the project. In this case, the deviations, if they exist, are generally very significant: major projects succeed or fail significantly. This observation highlights the role of complexity in the project deviation rate: complexity of the project system and the system around the project.

This traditional framework, which has strong limitations in the context of traditional development projects, is even more unsuitable for exploration or innovation projects. These observations are directly related to paradigm shifts in complexity.

Some alternate approaches can then be implemented:

  • Facing the perceived complexity of the project and the complexity of project execution organisation
  • Keeping execution flexibility
  • Beyond reverse engineering and linear thinking, formally introducing project requirements into the system engineering process
  • Accounting for resource constraints and overall project portfolio management
  • Including upfront the requirements related to implementation
  • Implementing the “agile” approach when suitable
  • Implementing multi-scale approaches
  • Implementing an efficient governance
  • Using new different tools for project management and governance
  • Implementing systemic design at the strategic level

Discover those strategies and more in our new White paper 2020-05 ‘Project Management: How to Overcome the Limitations of the Traditional Methods from the Industrial Age’

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/2020-05_Project_Management_complexity_methods_v0.pdf

Share

How To Implement Licensing Requirements During Project Execution Phase

Following on from our previous White Paper ‘How To Manage Licensing Requirements in Project Definition and Execution’, another challenge is to implement licensing and regulatory requirements during project execution. Some projects derail because of non-compliances which, once identified, strongly impair the start-up and operability of the project deliverable. In our new White Paper 2020-04 ‘How To Implement Licensing Requirements During Project Execution Phase’ we examine more particularly how to transfer licensing requirements into project execution to ensure conformity.

Nuclear safety inspector at work on the ground

Licensing conditions will arise from the interactions between the Owner and the licensing body during the licensing case instruction and will be formalised in the formal license terms. Main licensing conditions are ideally formalised just prior the Final Investment Decision for large projects, or shortly thereafter for smaller projects.

However, some additional licenses might be required during the course of the project e.g. building permits, operating permits that will also contain a set of conditions and terms. Ongoing surveillance by the licensing authority of the construction works will also create another list of demands and requirements.

All those license conditions will apply both to the project phase (execution plan) and to the design of the facility. We observe that projects often have difficulties in including those conditions and requirements in their design and project execution. This demonstrates that a comprehensive regulatory requirement management process must be put in place. Requirements must be applied through Management of Change and be flowed down to the workers.

In addition, in order to build the licensing case, a number of assumptions are being taken by the design team that are not always formalised and verbalised. However, the licensing body will also require compliance with those assumptions underlying the licensing case. It is essential to formalise those requirements during the production of the safety case to ensure they are properly accounted for during the project definition phase.

Implementing licensing conditions in a project is a critical aspect and is not always performed properly. The recommended approach is to deal with those conditions as requirements and run a full cycle of application and verification to build a compliance dossier, including formal Management of Change in case of any update or new licensing conditions.

The associated organisation needs to be considered carefully. Substantial resources may be required in highly regulated industries, and the interface with the operator must be carefully designed. Understand better about those challenges and how to resolve them in our new White Paper 2020-04 ‘How To Implement Licensing Requirements During Project Execution Phase’

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/2020-04_implement_licensing_requirements_project_execution_phase_v0.pdf

Share

How To Manage Licensing Requirements in Project Definition and Execution

Depending on the industry, the licensing process and associated requirements can be a critical activity for the success of the project. In highly regulated industry such as aerospace, rail or nuclear, licensing issues can become the critical path and even potentially derail the project. In our new White Paper 2020-03 ‘How To Manage Licensing Requirements in Project Definition and Execution’ we detail the issues associated with licensing and other regulatory aspects, and what are the best practices to manage them properly in the project definition and delivery process.

Regulatory requirements or licensing obligations may impact the project design, procurement, construction, and sometimes also the final product produced by the facility. For large projects, several regulatory fields may be applicable, and several authorities involved separately. For example, a pharmaceutical facility will be subject both to regulations on the safety of operation and to medical regulations on the quality of the product.

In our ever-increasingly regulated world, licensing requirements can easily become the critical path for large projects. It is often the case at two specific moments:

  • End of the definition phase, prior to Final Investment Decision,
  • During commissioning, testing and start-up phase up to final acceptance.

This is particularly obvious in many transportation industries, as well as in the nuclear industry. Even on smaller projects where this effect may be less noticeable, the need to go through a licensing process can produce unexpected changes in the project definition and implementation phase.

The issue is compounded by the fact that application file reviews by regulatory agencies are generally not fully predictable in terms of duration and effort, creating a substantial uncertainty as to the project execution schedule.

Good practices exist that are exposed in the White Paper. Some challenge areas are also developed:

  • The licensing requirements have not been identified in a comprehensive manner during design and execution planning
  • Change in project definition during the licensing process
  • Under-estimation of licensing requirements impact in brownfield situations
  • Changes in applicable regulations during the project
  • Management of project definition changes created by the licensing conditions
  • Contractual issues of Owner responsibility with a subcontracted design

Licensing requirements must be taken seriously and are often intrinsically linked to the final performance of the project. The licensing process can easily become the critical path or jeopardize the effective start-up of the facility. A number of actions must be taken early to include licensing requirements in the project definition process. Still, additional precautions must be considered to avoid the impact of possible change of regulations, licensing conditions and avoid missing some licensing aspects which could be highly detrimental to project realization and the economics of the future facility. Read our new White Paper 2020-03 ‘How To Manage Licensing Requirements in Project Definition and Execution’ to understand better how to deal with this 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/2020-03_licensing_requirements_in_project_definition_execution_v0.pdf

Share

What Processes and Systems Must be Setup by the Operator During Owner Project Execution

Following our previous White Paper on how best to involve the future operator during a project to improve its chances of success, our new White Paper 2019-02 ‘What Processes and Systems Must be Setup by the Operator During Owner Project Execution’ delves more precisely on those deliverables which need to be setup during the project by the operating organisation, to ensure a smooth start-up of the facility.

Certain processes that are needed for project execution will also be used for facility operation; therefore, it is certainly more efficient to set them up from the start in a way that will be useful for the operation phase. Therefore, the setup of those processes and systems are better led by the operating organisation to ensure they will respond to its long-term needs.

Such systems include in particular:

  • accounting
  • procurement
  • logistics
  • warehousing and preservation
  • preventive maintenance system
  • spare parts management
  • facility technical documentation and configuration management

In particular for greenfield projects, those processes and systems may have to be set up from scratch and the time required to implement those systems should not be underestimated. It should be included in the project schedule to make sure that the systems and process delivery schedule fits with the project needs. Some of the work will have to start already from the Final Investment Decision onwards, and sometimes even earlier than that, the project control system is ready for execution.

The setup of systems and processes suitable for the future operation of the facility is an essential part of project success. Yet this activity is often underestimated in terms of effort and time and not included in the project scope and schedule. It is essential that those activities be properly assessed, defined and considered by projects even if the responsibility of their implementation lies with the operating teams. Read more details and recommendations in our new White Paper 2019-02 ‘What Processes and Systems Must be Setup by the Operator During Owner Project Execution’

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/2020-02_Processes_and_systems_setup_by_operator_v0.pdf

Share

How To Involve the Future Operator in Capital Project Execution

For the Owner, involving the future operator during a project is an essential ingredient to ensure proper operability and thus production performance of the completed facility. At the same time, all the operators’ expectations cannot be granted as they would drive Capital Expenditure costs and overall financial performance, and this relationship needs to be managed. In our new White Paper 2020-01 ‘How To Involve the Future Operator in Capital Project Execution’ we discuss how best to organise future operator involvement during project execution.

The issue of operator involvement is quite similar for all projects. In brownfield projects, an operating organisation is already in place and operators should be detached to work on the project. For greenfield projects, an operating organisation needs to be set up and future operators recruited progressively generally starting at supervisory levels. If the Owner organisation already operates similar facilities elsewhere, supervisors from those other facilities can be detached into the project; they will often be expected to support the start-up and ramp-up phases.

The future operator must deal with a large number of issues essential with the facility’s ultimate success. The project needs to remain fully accountable for its timeline and budget, and it may well happen that the operator’s representatives come up with requests which may impact the project execution but provide future benefits for operation; or correspond to a wish to improve working conditions irrespective of the economics.

A process must be put in place akin to Management of Change to raise those issues to the project governance level for the organisation to consider. It is important that the project manager is not left in the front line for those requests.

Early involvement of the operator is an essential project success factor. The role of the operator representatives in the project needs to be considered seriously by the operating organisation. At the same time the governance of operator-suggested changes needs to be carefully set up, as well as rules for the interfaces between operator and project for all phases of the project, including ramp-up and the first years of operation. Those rules and split of responsibilities need to be established explicitly at the Final Investment Decision stage as they impact the Capex budget and schedule. Discover in our new White Paper 2020-01 ‘How To Involve the Future Operator in Capital Project Execution’ the details of how best to involve the operator in your capital project.

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/2020-01_How_to_involve_future_operator_in_project_execution_v0.pdf

Share

How To Properly Manage the Transition from FEED to Project Execution in combined FEED and Execution Contracts

An increasing number of EPC contracts combine both FEED* and project execution. In this context, we observe an increasing number of situations where Contractors move from FEED* to execution in a continuous manner without checking the comprehensive maturity of the proposed solution. This then inevitably creates substantial issues during project execution. In our new White Paper 2019-12 ‘How To Properly Manage the Transition from FEED to Project Execution in combined FEED and Execution Contracts’, we explore the good practices that should be applied in this situation, and the reasons why.

In general this approach of combined contracts can only be used in industries where the process and the solutions are proven. This then creates a number of opportunities for improved overall project performance.

Do not miss the gate at the start of project execution!

The push for acceleration tends to blur the limit between FEED* and project execution and this also creates substantial risks for the project which are often under-estimated.

In keeping with the good practices of project development governance for Owners, there should be an effective decision gate at the end of a Detailed Feasibility Study which not only covers aspects related to design but also checks the overall condition of the project including its execution plan, contractual strategy, and considers how well it interfaces with its environment including other parties or facilities.

Combining FEED* and project execution in a single contract is an attractive concept for acceleration of development projects. However, it should not mean that execution actually starts with the FEED*. It remains essential to check that the design and project execution plan are fully consistent and mature at the end of FEED*. Contractors need to learn to introduce in their project management framework a strong review gate at that stage inspired by Owner project governance frameworks. Any anticipation of execution or early commitments prior to that gate should be justified, limited and subject to authorisation. Read our new White Paper 2019-12 ‘How To Properly Manage the Transition from FEED to Project Execution in combined FEED and Execution Contracts’ to understand better this issue and learn how to address it.

*FEED is a common acronym in Oil & Gas and stands for Front-End Engineering and Design, and is more or less equivalent to Detailed Feasibility at least for the technical part (basic design)

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/2019-12_Risk_no_milestone_FEED_to_Execution_v0.pdf

Share

Best Practices of Gate-Based Project Assurance Approaches for Project Execution

Gate-based governance approaches are now mainstream for the project definition phase (or bidding phase for contractors). Many organisations also implement similar approaches during project execution, however, their application is slightly different because gates cannot in reality be go/no go gates. Based on our experience designing and implementing gate-based governance tools for project execution, we develop in our new White Paper 2019-11 ‘Best Practices of Gate-Based Project Assurance Approaches for Project Execution’ the best practices we have identified for those approaches.

A gate-based project assurance tool is a substantial asset for an organisation during project execution. It has to be designed and used slightly differently from similar tools used during project tendering (contractor) or project definition (owner) phases. It is particularly useful in organisations with low to moderate project execution maturity levels, as it acts as a safety net to make sure no major aspects of project execution get forgotten. It is also useful in highly mature organisations specifically for complex projects for which the basic model can be adapted at the start of the project and act as a reference shared by the team.

One of the most important differences is that most of the gates during project execution cannot be go/no-go gates but rather used as a self-check for the Project Manager to make sure that all aspects of the project have been correctly addressed as expected. The objective and scope of the process is thus quite different from usual gate-based approaches.

Read our new White Paper 2019-11 ‘Best Practices of Gate-Based Project Assurance Approaches for Project Execution’ to understand the specifics of gate-based project assurance for project execution.

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/2019-11_gate-based_governance_execution_v0.pdf

Share

How Brownfield Projects Are Always More Complex Than Expected

Brownfield projects by definition involve the modification of existing facilities. Specific characteristics of those projects lead to an increase of complexity compared to a greenfield project of similar scope. In our new White Paper 2019-10 ‘How Brownfield Projects Are Always More Complex Than Expected’ we investigate the causes of additional complexity, how to reduce complexity in this situation, and what additional measures are needed to achieve successful brownfield projects.

Brownfield projects include the modification of an existing facility, which is often currently being operated. While those modifications may vary significantly in magnitude depending on how much the changes or additions are done separately from the existing facility and how complicated the tie-in to the existing resources is, factors are always at play which increase complexity. Increased complexity always leads to a reduced success rate and a much higher uncertainty of the project outcome (in terms of cost, delay or operability of the final facility). Therefore, achieving success in brownfield projects is often harder than in greenfield ones.

The additional complexity of brownfield projects is real and is too often underestimated. Brownfield tends to increase organizational, technical and project execution complexity. This additional complexity has a significant impact on the success rate of those projects. Integration with the operating organisation is essential from the start, as is a proper leadership. The project definition phase will generally require more work than in a greenfield project, and this needs to be properly accounted for. A good integration of the project team with the operator and key contributors is also an essential complexity management approach.

Read our new White Paper 2019-10 ‘How Brownfield Projects Are Always More Complex Than Expected’ to understand better the complexity aspects of brownfield 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/2019-10_complexity_brownfield_v0.pdf

Share

How to Properly Review Project Estimates

Assurance of the quality and accuracy of project estimates is an essential issue for both Owners and contractors. In the previous post ‘What a Project Estimate Should Comprise of: An Extended Definition of Estimate Class’ we developed what the components of an estimate should be. In our new White Paper 2019-09 ‘How to Properly Review Project Estimates’ we describe a generic approach for reviewing the soundness of project estimates. We also expose some issues and shortfalls we have often experienced during estimate reviews.

The framework described in the White Paper starts from the observation that the accuracy of the underlying assumptions to the estimate are essentiel for its quality – compared to the detail or precision of the estimate itself. It is not because an estimate has taken much pain to develop and looks very detailed that it is accurate. It is essential to check the consistency of the estimate detail with the detail of project maturity, not only in terms of technical maturity but also in terms of detailed project execution planning.

The framework includes:

  • Assessing the estimate objective and the estimate class
  • Checking the underlying maturity of the project
  • Checking the scope coverage
  • Checking the documentation of the estimate
  • Checking the relative quality of the Opex estimate (Owners or operating contractors)

Read our new White Paper 2019-09 ‘How to Properly Review Project Estimates’ to discover a structured framework for challenging project estimates.

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/2019-09_estimates_review_approach_v0.pdf

Share

What should a Project Estimate Comprise of? An Extended Definition of Estimate Class

The concept of estimate is often limited to cost estimate. However, the actual estimate of the project also consists of many other elements, including schedule and risk analysis – everything which can be used to establish a project performance measurement and control baseline. In this new White Paper 2019-08 ‘What should a Project Estimate Comprise of? An Extended Definition of Estimate Class‘, we develop this extended definition of estimate and the consequences of that more comprehensive view.

It is important to understand that a “project estimate” cannot be just a cost estimate, as it needs to include the underlying schedule and risk estimates; and it also needs to encompass both Capital expenditures (Capex) and Operating expenditures (Opex) to provide sufficient data for the project business case.

The concept of ‘estimate class’ developed by AACEI and commonly used throughout the industry is very focused on design maturity. However, experience and good practice shows that other aspects are also essential to check the overall project maturity, and this includes project execution planning and organization as well as a proper understanding of the project environment. Therefore, we propose an extended approach to the concept of estimate class that accounts for those important factors.

Read our new White Paper 2019-08 ‘What should a Project Estimate Comprise of? An Extended Definition of Estimate Class‘ to understand all the aspects that need to be considered when checking the class of an estimate.

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/2019-08_comprehensive_estimate_v0.pdf

Share