Tetra Tech EC

MOS 3331B

February 23, 2021

Group 3

Maha Alam - 251042070

Sarah Ghazal - 251046845

Rachel Mankarious - 250973835

Lin Junchen - 250957909

Imaan Sohail - 250976703

Case Study 2

Discuss the evolution of the risk management and compliance process at Tetra Tech EC

Tetra Tech EC incurred many changes regarding the ownership of the company and

the projects it takes on. In 1992, two large projects resulted in the loss of tens of millions

of dollars, due to subsurface contamination and unanticipated risk; Tetra Tech EC

(EBASCO at the time) decided a risk management process needed to be developed to

protect assets, given the risky industry. Instead of engaging in risk avoidance, Don

Rogers was hired to start a program on the management of risk.

In 1993, a Task Initiation Procedure (TIP) was created for risk management and

compliance. This procedure included three simple steps: first the procedure was

understood, then risks were identified, and finally a risk management plan was defined

for each risk. There were five broad areas of issues (site conditions, technical

performances, stakeholder issues, regulatory issues, contract issues), and eleven

planning elements. The project managers were to consider the issues and identify the

risks of other upcoming projects.

Case Study 3

Unlike other companies, Tetra Tech EC’s risk management approach allowed them to

take on any level of risk, “there is absolutely no risk we can’t deal with”. The risk

management and compliance process began six months before Tetra Tech EC placed

bids; the client requests were reviewed, then risks were evaluated, communication with

the client allowed for negotiation, and a bid was then placed. Once the plan was created

and reviewed by specialists, the projects began execution. If there was any deviation

from the plans, the project was placed on hold as re-planning of the project and a

mandatory renegotiating of the contract occurred. To ensure that projects were

functioning as planned, peer reviews transpired after each sub-project, project reviews

occurred quarterly, and semi-random quality and compliance audits occurred yearly.

When TIP was initially introduced, in 1993, project managers thought it was a waste-of-

time and unnecessary. However, over time they realized that such naive questions could

lead to the emergence of risks that were previously overlooked. The process was

eventually understood and accepted. Although, as the years progressed, the regulations

and process grew so much that interference began to occur regarding innovation and

client satisfaction. In 2006, a new approach began which suggested that regulations call

for constant updates based on changing circumstances. This new approach made it easy

for employees to email the compliance department to suggest improvements and

allowed for employees to have a voice and be heard.

Case Study 4

After the fourth of July incident, incentives to report incidents and near misses

started; this increased the incidents reported that would have been ignored otherwise. A

chain of supervisors and discipline lead people to warrant that incidents weren’t

forgotten. Incident reports also taught many lessons and continue to change

procedures regularly. The evolution of the risk management process is evident. A strict

process implemented by the COO in the 1990s was required to be followed precisely.

Whereas, in 2006, employees were able to plan and alter projects to how they see fit

their specific projects. As a result, the evolution placed more power in the hands of the

employees and changed the methodology to bottom-up.

Elaborate on risk assessment as per the Task initiation Procedure (TIP) and oversight

processes

Tetra Tech EC’s organizational structure resembles a dedicated project team. The

organization and employees are there to support the project. Essentially everyone

working towards the same end goal is the motivation behind a project team. Don

Rogers recognizes that and can use it to incentivize the employees. Moreover, Tetra

Tech EC has a culture that supports open and free communication. Employees are

encouraged to speak their minds and bring their concerns straight to management.

Hence, due to everyone’s common goal, one employee's error may impact the whole

project and eventually, the final result. Creating an open communication culture as well
Case Study 5

as outlining previous mistakes and their repercussions aids employees in voicing their

concerns. Thus, the task Initiation Procedure was created for this reason.

The purpose of The Task Initiation Procedure, TIP, is to understand the project,

identify risks, and define the risk management plan for each risk. Tetra Tech EC clearly

outlines the 5 main areas as well as 11 planning elements. When hiring new personnel,

they are explained the importance of the TIP and how to plan it at every step. They are

trained to stop working and take the time to discover a new solution to avoid putting

the project at risk. The TIP ensures that the company can deal with a variety of

unforeseen risks in an efficient manner, clearly outline the steps needed to reach the

end goal and hold employees accountable for unreported errors.

The TIP is similar to the Risk Breakdown Structure, RBS, mentioned in Chapter 7.2.

In an RBS, the macro risks are first identified and then the specific areas are checked.

Each team submits an individual risk report to management to identify as many risks as

possible and have contingency plans in place. Risk Profiles are also conducted by having

individuals not experienced on the project voice their concerns. This allows the

employees to see the project from a new perspective and consider risks that may have

been overlooked.

Tetra Tech EC has several measures in place in order to mitigate various risks. As

previously mentioned, they can stop the process and implement solutions they

identified when performing a risk analysis. One unique advantage for Tetra Tech EC is its
Case Study 6

ability to come up with contingency plans when the problem arises. They are able to do

so by renegotiating the contract to fit the solution. This allows employees to slow down

and complete another risk analysis when implementing their new solution rather than

rushing through it. Implementing new solutions on the spot may further create adverse

risks that can negatively impact the end result. Therefore, performing an additional risk

analysis enables them to update their project plan with the new solution and mitigate

any further risks.

Compare and contrast Tetra Tech EC’s lessons learned approach with common

approaches by other companies (chap 7). Is it better? Explain.

Tetra Tech EC’s lesson learned approach is an approach where they learned from

their mistakes instead of repeating or forgetting them. At Tetra Tech, employee morale

is high, as each employee must report any major or minor incident instead of covering it

up. An example of this would be a case that happened at Tetra Tech EC. An object was

found that suspended a project and had to be destroyed using the protocol, however,

employees moved it to a different location instead. The employees were tired, wanted to

go home, and the specified day was the last day before a long weekend. This resulted in

costing the company $1.5 million and the workers involved to resign. In fact, what they

should have done was stop, replan, and tell the client that the project must continue

after the issue is resolved. Managers at Tetra Tech EC had to survey and investigate the

work done to figure out the lesson learned and not make the same mistake again. The
Case Study 7

workers were tired and had no idea about a whole set of other regulatory criteria that

had to be met. Hence, the lesson learned from this case was to teach these regulatory

lessons in the field specifically to those who will execute the plan. Tetra Tech EC also

introduced incentives to report near misses and incidents. Issues that arose on the job

were reported and the root cause was discovered. As a consequence, incident reports

were required documentation in the project review protocol. These incident reports

circulated so other people could benefit from them.

Another approach used in the textbook is the protocol approach where protocols are

established and set to prevent issues and complications from occurring in the first place.

An example of this would be Practice 7.4: Risk Management at the Top of the World.

Project risk management insights were provided by Mount Everest expeditions.

Numerous deaths have occurred due to the risks of extreme mountain climbing; this

resulted in having set protocols to follow to avoid risks and obstacles. Some of these

protocols were climbers acclimating their bodies to high altitude conditions, needing to

use oxygen masks and bottles during the final ascent to reduce light-headedness and

disorientation, and receiving last-minute weather reports to confirm if the weather

conditions might cause a risk. Another massive risk is the mental and physical fatigue of

making the final climb of mount Everest. This climb is called the “death zone” as the

body and mind quickly start deteriorating beyond 26,000 ft. The greatest risk is not

reaching the summit but making it back to the camp. Due to this, a contingency plan
Case Study 8

was established in case the weather changes or an accident happens. Guides established

a predetermined time that climbers had to return to camp by, no matter how close they

were to the summit. Many climbers have died due to not following these rules and

protocols. This stresses the importance of having set protocols to follow that would

prevent any risks.

Looking at these two approaches, the lesson learned approach would be more

convenient as it is more comprehensive and includes aspects of the protocol approach

as well. The lesson learned approach already has rules and guidelines that need to be

met in any circumstance. Near misses and incidents, whether major or minor, must be

reported and investigated to gain a lesson learned and avoid that mistake again. If a

project is to be completed that might have a risk similar to the one previously made, the

lesson learned must be discussed and talked through before starting the project.

How has Tetra Tech overcome challenges faced by project oriented firms? Compare with

one or more examples from the Larson textbook

The main challenge for project-oriented firms is risk mitigation; Tetra Tech has

overcome these challenges through their Task Initiation Procedure (TIP), the philosophy,

and the lessons-learned methodology.

Implementation of TIP: “Tetra Tech EC does everything the same way.” Tetra Tech uses

TIP to deal with every project. Firstly, Tetra Tech EC utilizes TIP to identify the potential

risks and mitigate these risks. Through the initial stage of TIP, Tetra Tech EC starts to
Case Study 9

identify the risks and approaches the clients, making sure that both sides fully

understand the potential risks of the project. The employees of Tetra Tech EC are trained

that, “In the end, it will cost the client and the firm more to continue than if you didn’t

stop and restart.” When an accident happens, Tetra Tech EC follows TIP and stops the

project immediately, and re-plans before starting until everything goes on the right

track. Being transparent with the clients about their approach from the start allows Tetra

Tech EC to have more room to negotiate the terms later, in the event an accident does

occur. The clients of Tetra Tech EC share the risks and uncertainty throughout the

project, which decreases the risk of losing money for Tetra Tech EC. When the project is

operating, Tetra Tech EC adapts three processes to monitor the projects and ensure the

projects are working as planned. The processes are peer-reviews, project reviews and

the audits. In the review processes, project managers, discipline leads, and executives

review the projects to ensure that everything is working as the plan. After the reviews,

there are two audit groups to review the projects and to monitor the projects. The

reviews and audit processes mitigate the risks and increase the satisfaction of the

clients.

The Philosophy: Unlike most of the other project-oriented companies, the company

philosophy Tetra Tech EC follows, welcomes employees to bring the bad news and

treats bad news sensitively. Only if the bad news is uncovered, then Tetra Tech EC can

work on it and solve it.

Case Study 10

Lessons-Learned Methodology: The high standard of employee morale matters to the

company’s success. Instead of covering and forgetting the mistakes, Tetra Tech EC

makes sure to learn from them. Employees are encouraged to report the mistakes that

they made to prevent them from making the same mistakes in the future.

To compare Tetra Tech EC's case with the Snapshot from Practice 7.3: From Dome

to Dust, the companies in both cases harnessed the idea of risk mitigation. In the

snapshot story, the company prepared for three months to plan the demolishing. During

the planning and preparation processes, Loizeaux’s company not only planned each

details of the project to get success, they considered the potential risks that the

demolishing could cause including the damage to surrounding buildings and nearby

people. To mitigate the risks, they built a fence to contain flying concrete, they also

hired security personnel to cordon off roughly 1,000 ft area from the building to prevent

people and pets from stepping in the area. After the building was demolished,

Loizeaux’s company started to clean up and control dust immediately after the

explosion. They also planned to utilize the crushed concrete, 1/3 of the crushed concrete

was used to build a football stadium, the other parts were used to build roadbeds and

foundations throughout the Seattle area. Regarding Tetra Tech EC, the company

implements TIP to plan the project and mitigate risks, Loizeaux’s company in the

snapshot also planned prior to the explosion and tried to mitigate risks.