2015 PM CONFERENCE - COLLABORATION FOR EFFICIENCY AND COST REDUCTION IN DELIVERING NORTH SEA PROJECTS

“NON-TECHNICAL RISK” WORKSHOP

Professor Denise Bower • Professor of Engineering Project Management and Director

of the Engineering Project Academy; University of Leeds• Executive Director – Major Projects Association (MPA)

Manon Bradley• Development Director – Major Projects Association (MPA)

Tony Maplesden• Strategic Authority – Projects; Wood Group PSN

INTRODUCTIONS

• A whole spectrum of project risks that frequently get overlooked – most risk processes focus mainly on ‘hard’ project delivery and technical (technology, engineering and facility) risks

• Shell experience:• Brent Spar decommissioning; 1995 - when non-technical

risks emerged• Current Shell stakeholder management practice on Brent

decommissioning

• Non-technical risk consideration and evaluation should be conducted on a broader basis• Project risk evaluation – ‘non-technical’ risks should

be given more thorough consideration • Project risk evaluation should be conducted

collaboratively across client, contractors, supply chain

• University of Leeds Model – Socio-technical systems

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY NON-TECHNICAL RISK?

PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND NON-TECHNICAL RISK

LEEDS UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOLSOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEMS

Technology

People

Buildings/ Infrastructure

Goals/ Visions/ Values

Processes/Procedures

Culture

HEX MODEL - RISK ASSESSMENT - EXAMPLE 1

Buildings/ Infrastructure

Processes/Procedures

Goals People

TechnologyCultureOver reliance on

technology

Failure of software systems

Failure of new technology e.g.,

baggage handling system

Inflexible management

systems

Failure to learn lessons from previous incidents

Poor relations between BAA

and BA

“Us” versus “them” attitude within BAA

Lack of systems testing

Inadequate training for staff

Inefficient familiarisation

for staff

To open Terminal 5

on time

Management focused on meeting opening deadline

Reluctance to listen to problems raised, in

order to open as scheduled

To create the greatest airport

with the best systems and equipment Failure to draw on

the knowledge of front-line workers

Failure to consider the

perspective of end-users

Employees unsure of how to use new

systems

Incomplete building at time of testing

Incomplete building on

opening

“In my own view, there was not one problem which caused that: it was the accumulation of a large

number of relatively smaller things, each one of which on

its own would not have caused that scale of difficulty.”

Colin Matthews, CEO, BAA

“So it was a combination of factors; I do not think it was any one issue. I

think any one of those items, indeed, a combination of a couple of those we could have coped with, but the significance of all of the problems

hitting us, in effect, at the very beginning of the operation led to the problems that cascaded through the

day”

Willie Walsh, CE, BA

The Opening of Heathrow Terminal 5

HEX MODEL - RISK ASSESSMENT - EXAMPLE 2

Buildings/ Infrastructure

Goals

Processes/Procedures

People

TechnologyCulture

Failure to coordinate the perspectives and activities of

multiple agencies

Failure to draw on the expertise of experienced crowd event personnel

Inadequate training and briefing for event

personnel

Lack of awareness of the roles and responsibilities of

the various agencies and how they interact

Lack of familiarity with

the event environments

Failure to communicate with

the appropriate agencies at the

appropriate times

Skewed perceptions of risk, with preparations focused on mitigating high

visibility risks at the relative exclusion of less dramatic, but more probable, risks

High proportion of temporary, part-time stewards, who are

not familiar with crowd events and are not well trained

Inappropriately positioned crowd

barriers or amenities

Inappropriately designed event environment –

aesthetically pleasing but not crowd friendly

Unfinished event location/ environment at time of personnel training and

system testing

Failure of new technology or

software systems e.g., radios, CCTV

Over-reliance on technology Lack of whole

systems testing

Inadequate testing of new technology and

software systems

Failure to identify lessons at the end of each day,

which could improve the event on subsequent

days

Poor relationships between agencies

Failure to learn lessons from

previous events

Pre-occupation with major risks, such as terrorism, at the expense

of considering more unusual, unexpected risks

Lack of communication and

cooperation between agencies

Lack of multi-agency

teamworking

Failure to consider, and plan for, the many different types of crowd, with different primary purposes, likely to

attend such large scale events

Poor command and control of the overall

event, with poor coordination across

all locations Inadequate

planning and preparation

Failure to consider the event from a systems-wide perspective

Pre-occupation with major risks, at the expense of considering more probable minor risks which may combine and

cause major problems

Failure to consider the knock-on effects of

minor incidents

Lack of coordination across event

locations

Focused on achieving an aesthetically pleasing

event, at the expense of operational practicalities

Focused on security concerns rather than safety

concernsInappropriate

prioritisation of goals

London Olympics 2012

Non-Technical Risk topics identified by MPA and its members over the past ?? years

MAJOR PROJECTS ASSOCIATION (MPA)NON-TECHNICAL RISK TOPICS

NON-TECHNICAL RISKS – WORKSHOP EXERCISE

Technology

People

Buildings/ Infrastructure

Goals/ Visions/ Values

Processes/Procedures

Culture

NON-TECHNICAL RISK - EXAMPLES

NON-TECHNICAL RISK

HEX Category:People

Risk Statement:Project team turnover and poor retention during project delivery

Project Impact / consequences:Loss of key resource and poor skillcontinuity resulted in delays to schedule and reduced quality

NON-TECHNICAL RISK

HEX Category:Goals / Visions / Values

Risk Statement:Poor objective alignment betweenthe project delivery parties

Project Impact / consequences:Self interested behaviour and a predominant ‘US / THEM’ culture,leading to conflict and adversity

IN SUMMARY

• At present, the level of collaboration between parties to the project in the identification and management of project risks is poor

• It is more difficult to identify and assess the full spectrum of non-technical risks than technical risks; potential non-technical riskstherefore quite commonly get overlooked

• In future, project performance would benefit from a more collaborativeapproach to risk management with a common approach and processesbeing agreed during pre-project planning and teambuilding

Do you agree?