Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Tag Archive: BP


DeepwaterA joint post from EarthPM and TenStep:

There are many examples of projects undertaken to produce some deliverable with environmental implications. In fact, one may assert that in fact, any project, since it uses resources, has environmental implications.  This varies tremendously, based on scale and the direct impact on the environment.  One project that clearly has environmental implications is the Deepwater Horizon drilling project and what is often called “the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster”.

Important note: We do not purport to say that any specific single action or philosophy that we enumerate below would have prevented the Deepwater Horizon disaster or led to its instant cleanup.  What we do assert, however, is that taken collectively and holistically, an intense focus on green thinking would have had a tremendously positive impact on the disaster.

Many companies are incorporating environmental considerations into their thinking about the deliverables of their projects, and some are even integrating this thinking into the operation of that deliverable. However, are they truly following green project management processes to assist them in their decision making process throughout the project and beyond? We assert that Green Project Management can be applied to all projects. Even those that may not appear to be creating a deliverable with an environmental impact still have environmental aspects that can affect their decision making (for example, even if one is developing a new software release there are decisions to be made that affect the environment – decisions such as meeting policies, method of duplicating the software, energy considerations for the servers involved, and so on).

Both TenStep and EarthPM believe that the environment should be considered in any project – and therefore in an organization\’s project management processes. We also think that doing this is not only the right thing to do but that it will benefit the organization.  Both organizations have published various communications which provide thought leadership on this subject (refer to www.green-pm.com and www.earthpm.com.

We’ve decided to apply examples from Green Project Management to the challenges faced (mainly by BP) in the Gulf Coast oil spill. The main thrust of Green Project Management is not that every decision will be made differently or “in favor of” the environment, but instead that each project needs to consider the environment in its decision making process.  This of course includes the conservation of the project’s resources, which should already be part of the project manager’s mission.

What we are suggesting here are some ways in which Green Project Management may have provided BP with key insights that,  taken holistically,  may have done some of the following (in the abstract, anyway):

  • Prevented the disaster or at least limited the extent of the damage
  • Made it easier to repair once it happened
  • Allowed BP and the other responsible parties to deal more skillfully with key stakeholders.

Let’s consider the example of Green Project Management in completing a project to define, develop, and implement the oil rig. Note that some of the examples below may not directly apply to the Deepwater Horizon project, but are provided as examples to demonstrate the principles of Green Project Management.

Project Charter

Have you ever seen a Project Charter template that has a section on environmental concerns?  It’s rare now, but we predict it will become much more prevalent.  Perhaps if the Charter for the Deepwater Horizon project included a detailed section on environmental impact, it would have raised the awareness of the project team and associated stakeholders with regards to improved means to prevent, mitigate (with activities such as relief wells), and respond effectively to spills.  A charter written with an environmental view also may have allowed BP to focus more effectively on the clean up process, because decisions like the purchase of Ocean Therapy boats (see this posting) would be indicated at a Charter level.

BP may also have identified a need to further evaluate its vendors/partners experience in prior, similar projects. Lastly, it may have resulted in a need to further invest in considering alternate approaches with various stakeholder groups, to assure the necessary buy-in prior to undertaking the project.

Project Scope Management and Project Integration Management

If the oil rig required additional drills, or a change in the materials used to create the drill or the oil platform, then scope change management process should have been invoked. Note that the latter could have been a requirements change, part of project scope management. When invoking scope change management, the environmental impact could have been considered, in addition to the impact on all other project management processes (schedule, cost, quality, risk, procurement, etc.) as evaluated through integrated change control. Perhaps a change in materials requirements would result in procuring materials from a different vendor. We discuss this further in the section on procurement management.

Project Management Plan – An Environmental Management Plan component

Existing BP environmental policies – which we’re sure that BP has in great number, considering their size and experience – need to have been used as an input to the project\’s Environmental Management Plan, identifying the environmental policies applicable to the project and the sustainability requirements for the project.

Requirements Management

When gathering requirements for the oil rig, BP could have reviewed its defined project Environmental Plan (linked to the company’s parent Environment Management Plan) and confirmed that the requirements for the oil rig would adhere to the plan. Making it clear to the project team that this linkage exists is a way to reinforce what should be elemental to the team’s behavior but sometimes can slip behind other priorities if not kept in the forefront.

Much has been said about the regulating agency, the MMS and their oversight (or lack thereof) of oil companies.  Ostensibly, the MMS should have been putting proper requirements on the companies doing the drilling.  As is the case with good project management practices, however, the vendor themselves has to ask the question: ‘who are the stakeholders, and what are their requirements?’ Perhaps with this mindset and a well-conceived (excuse the pun) and ethically-responsible environmental management policy – not just at a corporate level, but at a project level – an increased focus on both preventing the spill from happening and being able to effectively clean up after, would have resulted in a more thorough collection and communication of these environmental requirements before beginning to drill.

Cost Management

When estimating project costs, did BP consider costs for implementing any risk response strategies?

As mentioned in the Charter section, one could look at the Kevin Costner-funded Ocean Therapy centrifuge boats as an example.  For a relatively small investment, BP would be buying not only an easy way to clean up after a possible spill, but would gain valuable positive PR by aligning with the high-profile actor and his efforts to protect the Gulf. Perhaps it is too optimistic to think that the oil companies would have identified oil cleanup technology as a part of risk-response, but it certainly is within the realm of reason that cleanup technology and costs would be included in risk contingency plans (the plans that are put into effect if the original risk plan fails).

In fact, a recent news story shows that – although late – the oil industry has pooled their resources and is collaborating on oil spill response.  See this Reuters news story.

Identifying the costs related to the project\’s environmental aspects allows the project manager to discuss the costs with the Sponsor and determine whether the cost is more than offset by the project results. The financial costs of the realized threat are so high in this case – in the tens of billions of dollars and in fact the continued life of the company itself – that a different type of thinking has to be applied.  As is obvious now, BP could have invested more upfront to further mitigate or avoid the risk of spilling oil into the ocean. Even with Green Project Management, if BP\’s decision was not to invest more in a risk response strategy, then perhaps they should have estimated the contingent costs required for a clean-up activity as they are currently undertaking. See the risk management section.

Communication Management – Identify Stakeholders

How thorough was the stakeholder plan and ultimately the Communication Plan prepared by BP for this project? This project appears to have many key stakeholder groups, both internal and external. Was every major stakeholder group – internal BP, NGOs, government, industries/associations (e.g., fishing along the Gulf Coast), etc – identified and considered? Were they all included in the communications as BP developed and implemented the oil rig?

What type of communications plan would allow BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg to say “we care about the small people.\”?  We assert that with properly indentified stakeholders and a thoughtful stakeholder management plan, this likely would not have happened.

Risk Management – Probability and Impact Assessment

Really, this entire incident comes down to the way BP and others managed project risk.  The context is greater than risk management, as you can tell by the number of other headers in this document.  But it really comes down to project risk management. With “greenthink”, risks may be evaluated differently.

If we consider environmental factors that had never been applied, then BP may have identified the risk of the blowout as an extremely low probability of occurrence (based on prior experience, faith in the blowout preventer, competitors\’ experience, etc) but a very high impact when considering the environmental impact.  In fact, a very similar accident occurred in 1979 the Ixtoc.  In that case, the blowout preventer also failed.  So there was a precedent for this type of failure.  It could not be considered a “failsafe” solution.  The assessment could have also included the environmental impact of a blowout that occurred in Santa Barbara, California, in 1969.  Was their assessment of the impact high enough?

With such a low probability, you would have to have a huge impact for the product of probability and impact to give a risk score worth pursuing.  We assert that the probability was considered to be zero and that the impact was tremendously undervalued.  Without considering the environment aspect in project management process of risk management, the product was low enough that the risk mitigation and response was inadequate. As we noted above, Green Project Management may not result in a different decision. However, we are discussing this event because it truly depicts the importance of considering the environment and making sure that all project-related risks are properly identified, quantified, and addressed with the Sponsor and key stakeholders.

Procurement Management

When planning and executing procurement activities for this project, did BP:

  • Validate that their vendors/partners (such as Halliburton) met their environmental requirements?
  • Understand how their vendors/partners would align to BP\’s environmental policies and project approach?
  • Request feedback from vendors/partners on how they would align with environmental policies?
  • Audit that the vendors/partners were actually following the environmental policies?
  • Audit that the deliverables met the defined environmental criteria?

Summary

These examples have been provided to demonstrate how Green Project Management could assist in incorporating environmental thinking in any project. These scratch the surface in factoring the environment into project management processes. Perhaps BP accomplished these and more. Then again, perhaps a more structured approach to including the environment in all project management processes would have uncovered some of the issues and led to some very different decisions during the project, prior to deciding to drill more than five thousand feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico.

We assert that the point of Green Project Management is to view projects through an “environmental lens”. Perhaps, if that happened, some decisions would be made differently, with very different results.

About the Authors

TenStep, Inc, focuses on methodology development, training, and consulting, through its worldwide network of offices. Its focus on green project management (www.green-pm.com) was pioneered by Tom Mochal and Andrea Krasnoff.

Tom Mochal, PMP is President of TenStep, Inc., (www.TenStep.com). Mochal is an expert instructor and consultant on project management, project management offices, development lifecycle, portfolio management, application support, people management and other related areas. He was awarded 2005 Distinguished Contribution Award from the Project Management Institute (PMI).

Andrea Krasnoff, PMP is Director of TenStep Consulting Services. Andrea has more than 20 years experience in project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMOs. She is the Director of TenStep Consulting Services and is a key contributor to the TenStep Green-PM model.

EarthPM is dedicated to the “intersection of green and project management and is a collaboration between Rich Maltzman and Dave Shirley, co-authors of Green Project Management, CRC Press.  EarthPM provides the critical link between project management and environmentalism to increase awareness amongst project managers of the power they have to improve the greenality and effectiveness of their projects – whether or not they are directly involved with the environment.  Through their website EarthPM.com, Rich and Dave provide a variety of blog postings and resources, as well as consulting and course development services in Project Management and Green Project Management.

Rich Maltzman, MSIE, PMP, has more than 30 years of project management experience managing projects, leading project managers, consulting and teaching in Europe, the Middle East and the United States.  Currently, Rich is Senior Manager, Learning and Professional Advancement, at the Global Program Management Office of a major telecom concern. He is currently co-authoring a book with Ranjit Biswas, PMP, entitled “The Fiddler on the Project”, and posts regularly on his blog, Scope Crêpe, http://scopecrepe.blogspot.com.

Dave Shirley, MBA, PMP, has more than 30 years of project management experience in environmental and public health, and the telecommunications industry leading projects, project teams, managing project managers, consulting, teaching and course development.  He is currently developing a graduate course in Environmental Issues.  Dave is currently writing a book on project management for health care professionals.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 8.3/10 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

whale

This sounds like a joke, but it isn’t:

What’s 10 stories high, a football field wide, almost 4 football fields long, cruises the oceans, and can suck in 21 million gallons of seawater a day?

The answer: A Whale.

No, not the mammal, but a Taiwanese-flagged vessel called “A Whale” which is the latest in the series of project “workarounds” for the Gulf /Deepwater Horizon/BP oil disaster.

“In many ways, the ship collects water like an actual whale and pumps internally like a human heart,” Bob Grantham, a spokesman for TMT Shipping, told the Associated Press news agency.

This story from BBC has a nice video with some of the details.

From a project management perspective, this continues to illustrate the magnitude of the workarounds – actually we could say families of workarounds that BP has used to deal with the triggered risk of the Deepwater Horizon.

We know about the planned risk responses (for example, the blowout preventer) and the series of other risk responses (top hat, junk shot), and the long -term workaround (the relief well), and the Ocean Therapy boats, but this one is a BIG one.  Testing is taking place as this blog post is being written.

It will be interesting – and important – to see whether this will work, although this, like most of the responses are going after the impact of the threat (the spilled oil), not the probability of the spill in the first place (as a relief well would).

Given the magnitude of this disaster – it’s not surprising to see gigantic workarounds like this!

UPDATE: for those who would like an excellent animated ‘history’ of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, click HERE to see a 22-slide slideshow which is a very well-produced summary of how it happened and what actions have been taken to date.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

haywardLook on the right.

You see that man?  That’s Tony Hayward, CEO of BP.

Does he look happy?   No, he’s not happy.

Does he look comfortable?  I don’t think so.

He’s being grilled by the US Congress.

One of the reasons?  He – or his company – or perhaps his whole industry – doesn’t seem to understand a simple equation which most project managers know by heart.

RF = P * I

Risk Factor is the product of Probability and Impact.

In any uncertain situation, you should be able to determine how much effort is required to spend in responding to a risk (a threat in this case) by understanding the Risk Factor (some call it Risk Score).

In this case, the probability may be very, very low.  But the impact is so astronomically high, that the product – the Risk Factor demands a huge risk treatment or response.

The impact in this case is a combination of very tangible things, like a $20B escrow fund, some mildly tangible things, like the health of one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems and the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people, and the intangibles, such as the reputation of a multinational corporation which has just spent oodles (our own very technical financial word) of dollars to make their image a very green and friendly one.  How’s that working out for you, BP?

So – in that equation, I think we can all agree that no matter how low “P” is, “I” is very, very, high.  So the Risk Factor is going to be worth considering.

And yet.

And yet

Just before the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, BP sent home a crew from Schlumberger who was going to do a cement bond log.  What is that, you ask?  It’s a “representation of the integrity of the cement job, especially whether the cement is adhering solidly to the outside of the casing. The log is typically obtained from one of a variety of sonic-type tools. The newer versions, called cement evaluation logs, along with their processing software, can give detailed, 360-degree representations of the integrity of the cement job.” Seems like a good thing to do – and good assurance that your bond will hold.  Right?  The cost of this would have been $128,000.  This is only one of five decisions being raised at what can only be called the grilling of Tony Hayward.  The questions, coming from Republicans and Democrats, from oil states, and states that grow corn, all seem to be going after the companies acknowledgment of the Risk Factor equation above.

There is one point in the dialogue where Hayward seems to recognize the equation – however fleetingly:

“It gets to that point, though, that you have to question every assumption, especially when your entire company and its solvency are on the line.”

…and that equation leaves out the 11 dead, the ecological damage and the fact that the Gulf provides a livelihood for so many people as well as food for the world.

So what’s our point?

Keep the equation handy.  Keep it in mind.

Don’t be so fast to save $128,000 when on the other side of the equation there is a tangible $20B, and an even greater list of intangible damages to consider.  Your numbers may be lower (hopefully on both sides of the equation) but you will face this same choice.  Think of that picture above.  Do you want to have to wear that expression?

You can track the actual questioning here.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 9.7/10 (3 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

oilwater

First, a science lesson.

We’ve heard that oil and water don’t mix.  Why not?

From the Argonne National Laboratory: Water molecules have strong bonds with one another, called “hydrogen bonds.” This consists of an extraordinarily strong attraction that the hydrogens of one H2O have for oxygens of nearby H2O molecules. Oil molecules also have very strong bonds with one another, but not hydrogen bonds. Oil molecules are bonded to one another by what are called “London forces,” or sometimes”dispersion forces.” This is a little harder to explain in simple terms, but basically the large oil molecules tend to clump together because of these forces. However, an oil molecule does not hydrogen bond with a water molecule, and an oil molecule’s dispersion attraction to a water molecule is weak compared to the oil-oil attraction. So, the water stays separate from the oil, giving rise to the old chemistry saying “like dissolves like.”

Now, why the science lesson?  We think about the Gulf oil spill, and if water and oil don’t mix, what’s the problem?  Well, the problem is that the oil is carried by the water to sensitive shoreline ecosystems, causing significant and possibly long-lasting damage.

We blogged back on 22-May regarding Kevin Costner’s investment in Ocean Therapy – a special fleet of boats equipped with high-powered centrifuges that can very effectively separate out the oil and the water from the Gulf oil spill.  We covered this in the context of responding to the threat of the spill with a workaround.  Project managers have a lot to learn from the Gulf spill in terms of identifying, preparing for, responding to, and knowing the secondary and residual risks of their projects.

From today’s news we find that BP has finally decided to buy these boats and use them to help remove the oil.

We hope that this solution will provide some movement towards removing the oil from the water (as opposed to using dispersants – which have their own secondary risks).  We also continue to hope, of course, that the oil leak is properly capped, and that real risk treatment- like always drilling a relief well - are used in the future.  Always drilling a relief well, you ask, isn’t that expensive?

Sure it is.

But ask BP about the damage to their stock value, their image, their very survivability.  Ask the residents and fisherman and others who rely on the Gulf’s fragile ecosystem.  We think the P x I (Probability x Impact) equation yields a risk factor (or risk score) that is high enough to justify that type of investment.  And as a project manager, keep these things in mind as you analyze risk.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 5.3/10 (3 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

apollo13

“A Workaround is a solution to an unanticipated problem. Not to be confused with a contingency, or backup plan, which is conceived in advance, a workaround is a far less elegant solution to the problem. Typically, a workaround is not viewed as something that is designed to be a panacea, or cure-all, but rather as a crude solution to the immediate problem.”

The above is taken from an excellent resource for PMs – a blog called Project Management Knowledge.  They have a glossary and this is the definition of workaround.  We like it.  That is, we like both the site and their definition of ‘workaround’.

At the time of this posting, the Ron Howard movie Apollo 13, starring Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Gary Sinise, and Ed Harris, is showing on Home Box Office (HBO).  Also at the time of this writing, the Gulf oil spill continues and repeated attempts to fix it have failed.  Attempts with names like Top Hat, Junk Shot, Top Kill, and the latest, Slice and Cap, are a strong giveaway that what we’re working with here are, in fact, clearly workarounds.  In fact, we understand that James Cameron has been invited to help solve the problem, based on his work with advanced underwater robotics from his film The Abyss.

The reference to crude, the fact that the new mission of Apollo 13 was to get the astronauts back to Earth, and this being a blog called EarthPM combined with the crude that is pouring into the Gulf and the workaround(s) being attempted to fix that problem seemed to me to have way much too much ‘karma’ to not generate a post – a valuable one, we hope.  Oh, wait, there is the other connection of movies to the Gulf with the James Cameron invitation.  Wow, that is a lot of karma!

I suggest you start by watching this scene from the movie.

OK, if you have seen the movie, that was a good refresher, right?  And if not, suffice it to say that at this point, NASA is furiously searching for a way to save the lives of the astronauts, having scrapped the original objective the moon landing project long ago – just as BP is furiously searching for a way to stop the leak, the lawsuits, the damage to the environment, and to minimize the reputation damage they’ve suffered, to say nothing of avoiding criminal charges, having scrapped the original objective of the well (drawing oil from it to make money).

So let’s bring this back to Project Management again.

When we manage a project, we do a thorough job of Risk Management Planning, including the creation of  a Risk Management Plan – to tell us how, in general, we’ll deal with risk on the project.  This includes the ways in which we’ll identify risk, and general broad brush plans for contingency management.   Up front, in the project, we go through Risk Identification, Analysis (both qualitative, to see which ones have the highest risk factors, and quantitative, to further analyze those with the highest risk factors).  Only after we really have a handle on the project’s risks do we go through the details of responding to risk.

Furthermore, even after all this is done, we don’t stop.  We monitor and control risks to see, for example, if new risks have popped up, or if our current assumptions are still valid, or if the risk response plans we’ve put in place are working.

So, all that said, what if our risk response doesn’t work?

That’s where the word contingency comes in.  Contingency is money, time, or resources (like a life-saving flotation device) set aside to minimize the impact of the risk that is now triggered.  These are thought of in advance.  In the Apollo 13 dialogue, you hear the engineers actually use this phrase (“we didn’t have a contingency for this”).

On a cruise ship, a fleet of lifeboats on a cruise ship is part of their contingency planning. If contingency is a house pet, a workaround is a very different animal.  A workaround, unlike a contingency, is not fed with foresight, softly petted with preparation, not pampered with planning .  Instead, a workaround is like having a wild boar, or even more descriptively, a griffin suddenly appear in your living room, hungry, flailing, snorting, and growling.  It’s unexpected, and you must deal with it NOW.  And it’s really the dealing with the griffin that is the workaround, not the griffin itself, although the imagery was just too good to avoid.

griffin5That’s what BP and Transocean and Haliburton and Cameron International (manufacturer of the Blowout Preventer) are facing now.  That’s why they’re calling in movie directors and engineers, and 25,000 workers to put together Top Hats, Junk Shots, Top Kills, and Slice and Caps.  There was less of a contingency than there should have been to deal with the impact.  Once again (and we’ve blogged about this), why wouldn’t the oil industry as whole (if not BP in particular) have had a fleet of the Kevin Costner -funded boats ready to clean up the spill to at least buy a little time?  That’s a form of contingency that would have kept the griffins at bay.

Now BP has said that it had a contingency plan, and it’s working – incredibly, they did actually say that, just a few days ago.  Read that story here.

Let’s wrap this unusual posting in the following way:

It’s worth it to put the time in up front in a project so that you really understand the risk factors (the probability multiplied by the FULL impact) of all of your risks, and it makes sense to put the time in up front on contingency planning on those risks.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
Powered by WordPress & ecm design