PMI Global Insights

In a previous post, I’ve written about project failure rates in the mining and oil and gas sectors. Ernst and Young issued reports in 2014 and 2015 which reported 50-90% of projects are facing cost overruns, and between 50-85% projects are facing schedule delays, (depending on the geographical region you study, and whether they are metal mining or oil and gas developments.) Average budget overruns on these projects have spanned from 50 to over 100%. 

In their reports, several causes of overruns were noted on both the internal and external fronts. Primarily, most are non-technical issues, including: poor management, conflicts and communications, poor planning leading to optimistic estimates, regulatory delays and changes, and geopolitical issues, including economic downturns, commodity pricing, and disruptions caused by local and NGO stakeholders.

Links & Inter-relations

From experience and past research, it is my opinion that many of these non-technical factors are directly linked and inter-related - for example, disruptions by stakeholders primarily come about when they are dissatisfied with the level of engagement and/or emphasis placed on addressing their wants and needs, leading to conflicts and barriers to continue mandated engagement sessions, to access lands or to obtain work permits.  

This, in turn, not only causes impacts on exploratory work and collection of environmental and other relevant information necessary for project definition, regulatory assessments and applications, but also directly impacts the ability to gain regulatory approvals, and extends the timelines over which this may be completed.  

Much of this disruption originates from poor or incomplete engagement and communications, and mismanaged conflicts, both externally and internally. 

Lost in Translation

Even with the right external engagement and an initial acceptance of a proposal, if the wants and needs of our stakeholders are not well defined and pulled appropriately into the scope of the project, (read, specified as criteria or requirements), then the planning for that project becomes flawed and incomplete, causing the creation of budgets and schedules that are lacking in robustness. 

I have dealt with technical knowledge gaps in my own experience, and have interviewed several other environmental assessment practitioners, who have validated my concerns.

Often recommendations made by environment and social engagement practitioners are ignored. Perhaps the design team may have misunderstood how to produce the results requested, or it may simply have been that the criticality of the recommendations was under-appreciated. 

Under these circumstances, the resulting design becomes insufficient, and the details necessary to gain approvals (without a fight), or to ensure positive environmental outcomes, are left out. 

The typical reasoning provided?  The proposed option is the most “cost effective.” 

Risks Run Amok

Many risks to the project, or arising from the project, unfortunately get left unaddressed, and eventually end up having to be accommodated in later project phases as change requests and/or scope creep in order to gain that approval.  And the later changes are introduced to a project, the more time and money it takes to address them, hence forming the basis for poor performance rates of projects at a broader scale.

So, in reality, with all these issues being cited as causes of project failure rates, this is simply not true.

We have it in our power to change it.

Along with significantly altering failure statistics.

Had we done our jobs right, and not only engaged all of our stakeholders appropriately, but also at the right time (meaning before we commence planning and design of our proposed infrastructure), a large proportion of project impacts would diminish.  

We will have done a better job defining all of the requirements to include within the scope of our projects.  There would have been a broader, more refined scope, the risks associated would have been more clear, and the opportunities to find optimized, innovative solutions to address all of the requirements and risks, available to our design teams.  

Taking Control

This level of stakeholder engagement does take effort, and it needs to be carried internally with the teams working on the developments as well.  

Collaboration, a holistic view, and an understanding of all the interdependencies of our project components are critical, and communications between typically siloed teams need much improvement.  

Steps can to be taken to introduce broader thinking, and intersecting design philosophies, to form better designs and increase synergies. 

The creation of an open environment, where expression of new ideas and the introduction of new technologies or methodologies are welcomed.  Where concerns about decisions being made by other teams, and providing constructive feedback to each other, for the improvement of the project as a whole, can be voiced freely.

Am I suggesting that all of our problems will go away if we carry out these steps? No.

Geopolitical issues will not disappear, and regulatory changes should be expected over time, particularly in the extractive sectors where the lifecycles of operations can span many decades. Should we let this stop us from making change? No.

Instead, let’s improve what we have control over, and anticipate the other issues - engage, keep a fair and positive relationship with all parties involved, include stakeholders in critical decisions, and design for best practice / performance to avoid future problems.

Every team member and stakeholder involved with the project has a role to play, and each have the ability to make a positive impact.

Only this will help to optimize and streamline project performance, right from stakeholder engagement, planning and design, through environmental approval processes, development and operations of a site, and finally, to closure.

Gaining Support

A team representing various areas of expertise will be located in the exhibition hall in the “Ask the Expert” booth at the PMI Congress in San Diego – starting this weekend already! 

I’ll be there to help answer any questions you might have about sustainability, integration of these issues into project planning, and stakeholder engagement. Come find me!

Can’t make it and still have questions? Post them here, or connect with me on LinkedIn, or Twitter and send me a message that way. I’d love to hear from you!

TIP #5 FOR MANAGING A CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAM

(How to herd a group of cats, cows, sheep, goats, dogs and llamas….)

Meetings Don’t Waste Money, If They’re Done Right

Often in a meeting someone will count the number of people there, multiply by some number and come up with a cost then declare the amount of money ‘being wasted.’  It’s certainly possible to waste money (salaries) having people in a non-product meeting.  It’s easy!  Meetings are sometimes called “the practical alternative to work.”  AVOID THIS.  Don’t do this.  Have well-run meetings. 

How?  With Team Rules

Create a set of team rules!   The rules don’t have to be detailed, they shouldn’t come close to resembling a “Roberts Rules of Order.”  Our teams typically had about 8 or 10 rules.  We would post them on the wall of the meeting room.  Again, if you are meeting virtually, the same thing can be done.  Everyone can print out the meeting rules tape it someplace, or put it on their desk.  Whatever.  But actually seeing the rules written down in front of everyone is important.

Here’s a photograph of a set of rules from a very stressful turn-around project.  If you can see it, the last rule was a fine.  We’d fine people $1.00 if they were late for meetings – these funds were later converted to liquid and consumed by all.

A slightly edited version of our rules are

1. Neatness doesn’t count; accuracy does
2. If in doubt, write it on a big piece of paper
3. Bad news is good; good news is great!
4. Truth is permitted
5. Keep your charts / status up to date at all times
6. Don’t roll over or give up
7. Read the charts!
8. Stay focused
9. All meetings are held here – on time!

Shout Them Out

We shout these out if someone violates a rule.  For instance, our mathematician might say: “Whatever… I can do what you want, if you really want to do it that way.”  Everyone will shout out “RULE 6 VIOLATION!”  as loud as possible.   I must admit, I’ve been called out for “rule 8 violation” several times…

Rule number 4 sounds odd.  “The truth is permitted.”  This means that team members can say things you wouldn’t normally hear in meetings. “I’m late getting that done.”  Or, “This is never going to work.”  “Our solution is awful!” The only correct answer from the team for someone speaking to Rule 4 is “THANK YOU.”   Then, the team starts working on solving whatever issue just came up. 

There’s harmless humor in every situation

In any project, epically difficult ones – humor helps.  I’d like to refine this a bit to say “harmless humor.”  One fellow on our team was late for a meeting and arrived sweaty.  He promptly took off his tie and threw it on the floor.  “What’s wrong with you?”  It turned out he was shredding papers and got his tie caught in the shredder – while he reached everywhere to find an off switch.  From that day on, we awarded the tie to people for “lack of attention to detail.”  Later, the goat tie tack was added for an extra honor.   Everyone loves it.  Except perhaps the prize winner.

Mindreading doesn’t work

This one is pretty simple.  If you think the rest of the team should hear it – SAY IT.  It’s surprising how often teammates (who speak a different technical language) assume the rest of the team knows what they’re thinking.

Continual Questions

Part of the project leader’s job is to dig in to find problems.   The problems are then scheduled for “demolition.”  To find problems, we always, always ask the following questions

• What would ruin your plans?
  • Make me cry!  Make me very, very sad.
  • (Or, bad news is good)

Whatever it that makes the Project team cry must be dealt with.  The worse it the problem is – the better we like it, so “bad news is good.”

• Are we fooling ourselves?
  • Maybe we’re all just agreeing
  • (Group think)

Another favorite question, after all is  settled and we’re ready to move onto doing “work” as opposed to “meeting” is “are we fooling ourselves?”  “Are we drinking our own bathwater?” This is a conscious effort to avoid the DEADLY enemy of group think.  Nearly nothing is worse for a team than “group think.”  There are many examples, many documents, many books on the topic.  But, from personal experience I can tell you – it can KILL.

MEET ME IN SAN DIEGO NEAR THE PROJECTMANAGEMENT.COM BOOTH.

MAKE AN ONLINE / EARLY RESERVATION TO TALK TO ONE OF OUR EXPERTS HERE!