EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF PROJECT TROUBLES OBSERVABLE AT KICK-OFF MEETINGS

By Emmanuel Udo | October 10, 2017 |

It is often said that nobody goes out looking for trouble. That may be true. But sometimes you must go out looking, not just for trouble, but for signs that trouble may be lying ahead. This applies, particularly to projects.

We can often tell, even from the Kick-off Meeting (KOM), if the project is headed for trouble or not. Often the red flags that indicate trouble are evident everywhere, early in the life of the project, but the untrained eyes of most project personnel cannot identify them. However, experienced project personnel can identify these ‘trouble indicators’ and take appropriate steps to eliminate them, or put adequate measures in place to control them, so that project objectives are not jeopardized.

I would like to list some of the early signs that indicate trouble down the road. The remarkable thing is that they are often very simple or innocent-looking time bombs.

Kick-off Meeting Led by Contractor or Sub-Contractor Management

A naïve client might mistake this for expression of management commitment to, and support for, the project. Of course, we know that these are critical project success factors. However, that is not the case here. Often, it may be because project key personnel have either not been recruited, or they are still busy on other projects.

Therefore, the next time you see the Project Director instead of the Project Manager, or General Manager Engineering instead of the Engineering Manager assigned to the project coming in to make high-level presentations at your KOM, just prepare for trouble.

High Level Execution Strategy

KOM is a forum for the project team to demonstrate to the client how they intend to execute the project. Presentation of high level execution strategy that lacks required level of detail that would be expected at that stage should be viewed as evidence of trouble, unless proven otherwise.

Key Project Team Members Absent from Kick-off Meeting

This follows from the case above. The absence of project key personnel from the meeting should be viewed as evidence of trouble. It may be indicative of the priority ranking of the project by the contractor. Discipline leads being represented by subordinates may indicate that the contractor does not consider the project sufficiently challenging to warrant the assignment of its best hands. The usual argument that they would be following from the sidelines, should be treated with caution. That is a red flag of its own.

90/ 60 Day Look ahead Schedule Different from that submitted during tender

This is the early, front end schedule prepared to guide the management of the project while the detailed baseline schedule is being prepared, reviewed and approved. Good practice demands that this is extracted from the tender schedule with further elaboration.

It represents activities that make up the first 60 or 90 days of project duration based on which the contract was awarded.

But one has seen cases where the project team selects some activities from the contract schedule, to which they add other activities that were not listed, and then present this as 60 or 90 Days Look Ahead Schedule.

The danger with this is that we now have a ‘new schedule’, because the logic of the original schedule is lost. And also, the duration.

Key work items missing from contractor presentation

The KOM provides opportunity for the project team to demonstrate that they fully understand the scope of work, and are clear about the strategy for executing the project. This is particularly important if the project team leaders were not part of the proposal team.

However, if key work items are left out of the presentation then that should be a major red flag for the owner. It indicates that the project team has not had sufficient time to review project scope, or plain do not understand it.

If this is not recognized for what it is – a lack of understanding of the scope of work – and adequate measures taken to address it, the project will be delayed.

Unclarified issues carried from the bid process into award

A common contracting practice is to award the contract to the lowest bidder. The assumption is that due diligence had been exercised during the tendering process to ensure that the owner fully understands what the low bid represents. This provides opportunity to clarify all ambiguities.

Sometimes this is not the case, and those issues show up at the KOM. For instance, in one oil and gas wellhead project the lowest bidder estimate was based on 10% radiography of piping, instead of 100% indicated in the ITT package. The bidder effectively priced for 10% of that work scope instead of 100%. This was not discovered before award or even during the KOM. It led to dispute and delays during project execution.

Inadequate Provision for Subcontractor Activities in Main Contractor Schedule

On many occasions, the EPC contractor is required to contract out detail engineering to an independent design contractor, while retaining ownership of the whole project scope. This implies that the main contractor will review engineering deliverables for adequacy before submission to the client for final review and approval.

However, there have been cases where this review had not been provided for in the overall project schedule. Consequently, the project is delayed even when the subcontractor is on schedule.

It is impossible to list all early warning signs that the project team should look out for. The good news is that most of these are very commonsensical that nearly anyone can recognize them, if we exercise adequate care.

Therefore, next time you attend the KOM, don’t just listen; look out and you may be able to spot some of the danger signs, and save yourself and your team many troubles down the road.