Post on 04-Jul-2015
description
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD
Partnering (Minimize Failure/Enhance Chance of Success)
2
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
SUKAD contact informationMain Website: http://www.sukad.com
Learning Division: http://learning.sukad.com
Solutions Division: http://solutions.sukad.com
Knowledge Portal: http://knowledge.sukad.com
English Blog: http://blog.sukad.com
Arabic Blog: http://blog-ar.sukad.com
SUKAD main email: info@sukad.com
3
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
SUKAD social mediaFacebook
Page: http://www.facebook.com/SUKADgroup
Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/sukad/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/SUKADgroup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/SUKADipms
LinkedIn:Page: http://www.linkedin.com/company/sukad
Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/SUKAD-Group-Integrated-Project-Management
4
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Project failures and success
CS 1: working across continents/organizations
CS 2: innovative planning/execution techniques
CS 3: project control/stakeholders involvement
CS 4: from adversaries to integrated team
Partnering Topics
5
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Project failures and success
There are four major categories of project failuresThere are dimensions for measuring project successUnder each of these categories there numerous reasons
6
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Project failuresProject fails because of one of four categories:
Lack of proper business case, feasibility study, objectives setting
Failure in planning
Failure in execution
Environmental conditions significantly different than anticipated due to abnormal situations
It could be a combination of the above
Understanding failure allows us to proactively seek success
7
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
More on project failuresFailures due to each of the above categories can be due to:
Individuals’ competence, or lack of
Training, professional development, other factors
Lack of proper follow up
Empowerment and accountability
The project management organizational system
No proper methodology and processes in place
No historical project records and lessons learned …
Low level of project management maturity
8
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Dimensions of project successTopic of another workshop
9
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
D1: Success of the Product
The four dimension of project success
D4: Success of The Idea – Business Objective
D2: Success of Project Management
D3: Success of Project Delivery
10
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Case studies: setting the sceneThree case studies are from same project
Mega project; two parts
New facilities; revamp of existing refinery
Joint venture; 3 partner (50/40/10)
Main partners are North American, Project is Asia
On a small island; no space or local resources
Contractors mostly European
Labor from various Asian countries
Cost plus (reimbursable) contract + incentive
11
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
CS 1: Working across continents & organizations
Project ManagementOverall responsibility with the project ownerDelegated some PM activities to main contractor
Teams:Owner team mostly North American with a few European and Asian membersContractor management team mostly European with some Asian and other nationalitiesConstruction staff numerous nationalities
12
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Truly global projectMain owners executive management in USA
Main contractor management in UK
Construction contractor mostly German
Preliminary engineering in USA
Detailed engineering from UK
Procurement led from UK but global sourcing
Construction on four sites in SE Asia
13
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Procurement & sourcing
14
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Challenges and success factors (focus on human aspects)
Dispersed teams and management
Frequent online and face to face communications
Island local and limited spacing
Modular construction on four sites
Enhance safety and productivity
Large number of organizations involved
Had to build bridges (cultural and otherwise)
Worked as integrated as possible
15
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
More challenges and success factorsIncentive – cost plus contract
Initially a challenge and caused conflict
Later helped build trust and became an advantage
Language a challenge; especially construction
All signs and safety info in four languages
Every crew had a member that speaks one of the four languages
Labors not used to strict safety standards
Using various techniques including “Models”
16
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
CS 2: Innovative Planning and Execution Techniques
Major challenges due to island limited spaceNew plant has to be on reclaimed landTime constraints due to external factors (government closing the shipping channel)Lack of space did not allow to have all labors on sitePlus not enough labor in nearby countries
17
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Location, location, location
18
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Possible solution
19
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Chosen solutionUse modular construction techniques,
Build the main process unit as modules
At fabrication yards
Ship them to the site on barges
Install them one after the other – like Legos
This was selected option
Resulted in close to 200 modules
Many the size of a four-story building
20
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Project pictures (the reclaimed site)
Tank Foundation
Crane Foundation
21
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Channel, Barge, Modules … Closing the Channel
Vessels – Delivered Ready
Pipe Rack Modules
22
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Fired heaters modules
23
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
The GiantThis is a relatively light module
One of the largest cranes in the world – 10 days to move
24
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Various Stages of Assembly
25
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
26
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
27
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD
Today
29
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
CS 3: Stakeholders Involvement
Focus is on project control
Contract: threats and opportunities
Stakeholders involvement
30
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Main contract
EPC Contract (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction)
Construction was to be subcontracted to one general contractor
Which ended up being a joint venture (consortium)
31
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Contract’s commercialsCost plus (reimbursable cost)
All costs will be reimbursed (owner risk)
Contractor profit is in the form of a fee
The fee was incentive fee with a cap
The fee was in three parts Safety fee: certain amount if project meets clients
safety requirement – on a scale
Schedule fee: same thing – one a scale
Cost component was also on a scale
32
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Capital Risk Continuum (Contract Types Versus Risk)
Our Project
33
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Cost component of the feeCost component was largest; 75% of total fee
The fee could grow or shrink based on actual performance
Budget was set by the owner, with input from main contractor
34
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Project controlOwner team started as four people early in the project
By the team we reached construction became 2 with one doing most of the project control
Main contractor team had more resources
After the rough start early in the project learned to trust each other
Un-officially formed an integrated team to work together
35
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Dealing with the challengeTeam (project control) divided the project into control accounts
Identified the owners for these accounts
Defined the budgets for these accounts
Analyzed the accounts for potential cost savings opportunities
Simulated possible incentives if we achieved these cost savings
36
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Stakeholders involvementPC met with control accounts owners; one-on-one
Shared with them PC perspectives
Invited them to work with us in collaboration
Asked them to be cost conscious and identify saving opportunities
Kept them up to date on weekly/monthly basis (depend on account)
37
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
ResultsSome did not truly collaborate well
Most welcomed the initiatives
Did generate some cost savings, in construction, which is not easy
Avoided potential costly variances
Built strong team and stakeholders relations
Did contribute to project success
Project wise: did not cap the cost incentive but came close
38
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
CS 4: Adversaries to Integrated TeamProject characteristicsProject owner and contractorThe contractProject managementThe challengesThe solutions
39
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Alliance engagement: background
Petrochemical projects @ 5 sites (plants)
Multiple projects from $200 m to $50 mm
Total value at peak ~ $100 mm
Alliance contract
Engineering, Procurement, Construction
4 years term – renewable
True cost plus incentive based contract
Client provided estimate, agreed by contractor
Contractor profit only if we under run projects
40
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Organization
Client “PMO” housedProject engineersManaging overall project with focus on engineering
Construction supervisionMostly about quality, safety, and coordination with
operation organization
Project control (cost & schedule) responsibility of PE – but not main focus (initially was not on PMO)
Estimating is in home org not on PMO
41
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Organization, continued
Contractor PMO housed
Project engineers & construction supervision
Like client organization but more direct to work
Project control: cost, schedule, & subcontracting responsibility of Technical Support Team
Most construction labor by contractor and specialty subcontractors
Both contractor and client housed together
Construction at each site
Engineering and Technical Support in common site near the plants
42
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
The situationMost projects over running their budget
Contractor not earning any profit and blaming client for deceptive estimating
Client blaming contractor for lack of management and control
Definitions
> 110% of budget = over run (headache)
100 to 110% of budget = over expenditure
Tolerated – but as long as we stay close to 105%
43
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Conflict
Both client and contractor losing credibility with the “owner” / i.e. client operations
Trust was destroyed
Client PM – OK but not highly effective
Contractor PM – same way; replaced with a “top gun” from contractor
Two years into a 4-year contract
Contractor no profit and facing losing renewal
Client suffering over runs
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD
45
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Solution?
Client established a project support officeInitial team consisted of 3 team members
Later increased to 4
Main obstaclesNot enough power or authority
Walked into a confrontational situation
Not enough experience in team
Not directly responsible for control
46
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Initial results
Contractor huge resistance
Large project control team consisted of close to 40 people at peak
Reduced workload led to drop to ~ 20
But not effective at all
Major confrontation
With every report and monthly status
Struggling with multi-projects environment
47
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
The seesaw effect
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
105.0%
110.0%
115.0%
120.0%
125.0%
130.0%
135.0%
140.0%
Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10Fore
cast
/ Pl
anne
d B
udge
t
Month
Forecast Movement
Proj 1 Proj 2 Proj 3 Proj 4 Proj 5 Proj 6
48
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
IntegrationContractor new PM not fully aware of issues
Adversaries meeting of the minds
Convinced him to come to a monthly review
He was literally shocked – his pride was hurt
Another meeting – asking us for solution
Proposed concept of team integration
Refused for all PMO
Agreed for PSO – joining both teams
Client organization accepted but with hesitation
Contractor PM insisted – he was the champion
49
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Integrated, what now
Believe in the team
The issues are in the system
Resistance by contractor support manager
But lack of performance weakened his stand
Overcome through good relations and giving his team confidence and support
Action – multiple meetings one-on-one
Understanding issues and frustrations
With their own organization and client
50
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Next steps
Team agreed to the various challenges facing the organizations
Paired team members and assigned each pair a challenge
to study, analyze, and develop solution … and
training of other team members
four weeks target completion
fear and lack of confidence – overcome with coaching and mentoring
51
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
52
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Offsite team buildingThree days – team building/offsite event
7 am to 11 pm together
Discussions and presentations about each challenge and solution
Trained each others
Outcome
Major confidence building
Significantly increased trust
Understand that we are on the same side
53
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Specifics issues
Luck of trust in client estimates
Educated team about it and established feedback process
Forecasting “by asking” around
Explained “client forecasting” and provided tips on how to do it
Cost report issues
Developed standard form with easy use
Subcontracting issues – mostly scope related
54
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Alliance Engagement: Other Items
The were many other challenges that we did address
Training sessions For all control personnel
Also awareness about project control to
All project engineers – both sides
Construction supervisors – both sides
55
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD Group (www.sukad.com) - Partnering
Summary
Staged approachFirst – fixed internal systemNext – evaluated contractor systemWorked on “low hanging fruits”Then – made the case for integration
Integrated teamTackled the issue of forecastingMoved on to various accounts: issue by issueWorking toward enhanced control & forecasting
Effort helped renew the Alliance Contract
© 2012 - 2013 SUKAD
Thank You
This presentation is per the Creative Commons Guidelines
Refer to access information on PM Knowledge Portal