Delivering Competitive

Projects
Peter Igbi, MNSE
What is a Project?
A series of tasks that need to be completed in order to reach a specific
outcome. It consists of a series of inputs and outputs required to
achieve a particular goal.

They are initiated to solve a problem or take advantage of an

opportunity

They range:
 From simple to complex
 Single discipline/individual to multiple
 Greenfield to Brownfield
 The Nigerian Project Delivery
Climate
“Why projects fail in Developing Countries”…PMI

1 Ineffective project planning and preparation

2 Faulty appraisal and selection processes
3 Defective Project Design
4 Problems in start-up and activation
5 Inadequate project execution, operation and
supervision
6 Inadequate or ineffective external
coordination of project activities

Source: Project Management Quarterly by PMI

Source: An Investigation of the Effects of Cost Overrun Factors on Project Delivery

Methods in Nigeria
…OKORE , AKPAN and AMADE, (PM World Journal : Vol. VI, Issue II – February 2017)
Delivering projects – essential foundation &
elements

• Cycle Time
Sensitivity
• Customer
Satisfaction • Front End Delivery
• Critical Success Factors definition
• Quality Separation • Risk Identification
• Cost Leadership • Project driver focus
• Contracting and Procurement
• Risk Management
• Technical
• Non-Technical
• Construction Management & Delivery
• Assurance and stage gates (Decision Control Framewor
Delivering projects – Importance of Standardized
Processes
• Deploy an integrated project delivery toolbox
• What needs to be done
• In what steps (intent focused)
• In what order (intent focused)

• Grow Leaders
• Develop critical skills
• Deploy the right people

• Streamlined and consistent delivery process (project pipeline)

• Stage gates
• Milestone Focused
• Etc

• Measurement of Project Health

• Based on various project delivery indicators
• Focused on items that deliver the essential project elements
 Delivering projects – Importance of Risk
Management
Two Types of Risk: Technical and Non-Technical

Project Risk Approach:

Identify  Analyse  Quantify Vision, Principles and Operating Model
Reduce Risks and enhance opportunities through design  Mitigate residual
Risks  Approvals and Execution.

Technical Risk Sources: Usually from technology that drives the process.

Non-Technical Risk (NTR) Sources:

 Socio-economical
 Environmental
 Security
 Regulatory/Political
 Health
 Commercial

NTR and TECOP Analysis both contribute to project

Objectives of a Structured Risk Management
Process
Structured Risk Management adds value by:
• Ensuring that all risks & opportunities potentially impacting the project are
identified, assessed and pro-actively managed in order to increase the
probability of project success.
• Providing a clear and concise process for documenting risks & opportunities
and their associated actions.
• Engaging all stakeholders and key contractors appropriately, creating
ownership and buy-in to the risk management system.
• Enabling project management to make risk based decisions

There is a
difference
between Risks
and Issues
Typical Problems in Project Delivery
 Inaccurate/outdated Drawings
 Integrity scope which could be covered by routine maintenance programs
added to the project
 Obsolescence of equipment marked for replication
 Unclear Standards strategy (for example carbon copy conflict vs new
standards and new DEPs)
 Design constraints not understood or improperly defined
 Tie-ins not properly identified
 Recycles due to scope changes
 Cost estimate basis is not robust
 Schedule not resource loaded
 Turn around not factored into the planning
 Partner disagreement
 Unclear business case
 Under-resourced teams
 Hence a successful and competitive
project is:
• Well Planned
• Well Resourced with a strong team
• Has a clear and effective communication structure
• Has good change control
• Has a clear and focused vision of what it aims to achieve
• Is adequately positioned to manage risks
 CASE STUDY-1
Case 1: Mama Put!!
- Front End Considerations
- Success Factors  Location, Demand, Types of Meals(diverse/specific), Optics
- Risk Identification Price escalations, hygiene, environment , Local Government regulations, competition
- Project Driver  Profit

- Procurement
- Availability and cost
- Proximity to business
- Rent?

- Construction
- Wind direction
- Proximity to the Pot
- Sitting arrangement
- Washing of plates and customer turnover

- Quality Control
- Lessons Learnt from others
- Tasting and cooking skills
- Cash flow management
CASE STUDY-2
Case 2: Installation New Equipment in Brownfield Location
Understated
Understated Piping
Piping Lengths
Lengths Poor
Poor Relief
Relief System
System Removal
Removal Assessment
Assessment
Poor
Poor Site Survey/Stakeholder engagement
Site Survey/Stakeholder engagement System impact not exhaustively considered
Initial design resulted in excessive dP Stakeholders (PEQ) brought in late
 Addendum
 Addendum to to BDEP
BDEP required
required System rerating
System rerating and
and additional
additional scope
scope

 Schedule delay, iterations with
Schedule delay, iterations with Engineering
Engineering Contractor
Contractor

Tie-in
Tie-in Challenges
Challenges Picked
Picked up
up Late
Late
Inaccurate
Inaccurate Pipeline
Pipeline Sizing
Sizing
Tie-in
Tie-in requirements not properly considered
requirements not properly considered in
in
original design In-unit
In-unit piping not resized to
piping not resized to match
match with
with increased
increased
flow

 Delay

Delay in
in tie-in
tie-in Brownfiel flow
Velocity
Velocity in
in piping
piping above
above max.
max. as
as per
per DEP
DEP
 Potential Production
Potential Production Impact
Impact 
 Scope
Scope change
change with
with associated
associated impacts
d Failures impacts

Poor FEL and

Inadequate
Inadequate Design
Design of
of Condensate
Condensate Flash
Flash Vessel
Brownfield Key stakeholders
Key stakeholders not
not properly
properly engaged
engaged
Vessel

Standards
Standards Requirements
Requirements Not
Scope Change
Not Picked
Change (additional
Picked Up
Up Early
Early Execution  Assumptions made without proper verification
Scope (additional isolation
isolation valves)
valves) Vessel
Vessel with
with design
design flaws
flaws delivered
delivered on
on site
site
 Schedule Impact  IPF workshop done in Execute phase
 IPF workshop done in Execute phase
 Additional Scope (Isolation valves, etc)
 Brownfield Projects Are
• Within the physical boundaries of an existing asset
• The new facilities physically interact with existing facilities
• Typically the level of interaction increases as project size increases
• The physical proximity of new equipment to existing assets creates SIMOPs,
technical, process safety and construction safety interactions.

The success of Brownfield projects are therefore characterized by complex

dependencies on, and accurate knowledge of the assets to which they are
added.
Important project outlook for success: Important activities for
integration of new project with
 Maintaining the overall reliability and existing facilities are:
availability of the integrated facility.
 Minimizing disruption to existing 1. HAZOP Reviews
facilities 2. IPF/SIL Classifications
 HSSE&SP considerations applicable in 3. 3D Model Reviews
the Brownfield environment (SIMOPS, 4. Hazardous Area Classification
Standards compliance and ALARP 5. Fire and Gas Mapping
demonstration). 6. Constructability Workshops
 Understanding project execution
constraints.
 Understanding additional permitting
and approvals. Carbon Copy,
Brownfield Projects Success
Factors
Know the Asset: Gaining familiarity early on with its design,
standards, condition, operation and performance as well as its long
term objectives.

Assess Execution Constraints: Identify and plan to tackle constraints

early, these include resource, space, access and logistics concerns. It is
also very essential in the early phases of the project to identify, plan
and resource for simultaneous operations (SIMOPS) restrictions.

Have More Detailed Definition Early: Identify and generate

solutions to all possible constraining situations in a proper systematic
manner and be explicit about scope boundaries to avoid scope creep as
a result of unforeseen scenarios.

Create Joint Ownership: Ensure an aligned view on the project

requirements with facility owners/operators. The objective should be to
enable project integration with maintenance and operations objectives
and priorities
Existing Toolswhich would be critical in optimizing the execution plan
taking
 into account
Brownfield Healthproduction
Check value and obligations.
 FEL Assessment
CASE STUDY-3
Case 3: What went wrong here
"What we ever hope to do with ease, we
must first learn to do with diligence.“

…Samuel Johnson