Share Your Experiences in Project Design: Study To Identify Drivers of Complexity
A few months ago while at lunch with a project team, I heard an engineer lament about how much more difficult it is to execute a project now than in years past. Innocuous as that comment seemed, it resonated with everyone at the table, and my discussions with others on this topic have made one thing clear to me: We have a complexity problem in the industry.
With that in mind, I built a team to look at the drivers of complex systems such as the relationship between cost escalation and complexity, though other factors like schedule slippage are perhaps just as significant. We plan to start a discussion that will light the path for future data collection and analysis.
The team assembled comprises Gordon Sterling, project manager at Shell (retired), Charles Jennings, partner at Leading Edge Collaboration, Ray Rui, researcher at Independent Project Analysis, Paul Paterson, technology manager at an operator, Mike Richbourg, facilities engineer at GATE, James Deaver, engineering adviser at OFD Engineering, Janet S. Elias, engineer and cognitive scientist at GATE, and Simon Richards, consultant.
The questionnaire at the end of this article will form the basis of our interviews with selected industry veterans. We also would like to receive completed forms from the Oil and Gas Facilities readers.
Introduction to Complexity
There are many contributors to system complexity, such as entropy generation, information content, the number of nodes, and computational ability.
When studying systems, it is important to look at the ways that individual nodes affect each other. Emergent properties, or properties that emerge from a combination of simpler constituent parts, are key elements: A system is not the sum of its parts.
For example, consider an ant colony. An ant is a simple creature. Alone it will wander aimlessly and die. But put 100,000 of them together and they create a superorganism with skills in finding food, buildings nests, and fighting enemies. The properties of the colony are not properties of the individual ants.
Common properties of complex systems include:
- Multiple interconnected nodes
- Emergent complex collective behavior even with few nodes
- Generally no central control
- Presence of signaling and information processing
- Adaptation over time by learning or evolution
Types of Complex Systems
Two types of complex systems are discussed in the literature as distinguished by the properties of the nodes. Complex physical systems (CPSs) have mechanical nodes, each of which follows simple fixed rules (e.g., an ant colony). Complex adaptive systems (CASs) have intelligent agents as nodes (e.g., a project team).
A system composed of humans (CAS) has the opposite behavior of a system of ants (CPS). Doubling the number of ants in a colony will probably get twice as much work done. Doubling the number of humans on a design team will not result in doubling the work done—it may result in less work completed. As human organizations get larger, they become increasingly less efficient because of coordination losses and motivation losses.
A project can be viewed as comprising multiple interrelated systems such as:
- Physical system (CPS)
- Design organization (CAS)
- Vendor organizations (CAS)
- Construction organization (CAS)
- Operation and maintenance organization (CAS)
- The public (CAS)
Except for the physical plant itself, all systems are CAS, which are much more difficult to study. In a CPS, the behavior of each node is predictable. Each type of ant behaves like others of its type at all times. In a project team, each node is an intelligent, emotional individual with a set of objectives that may not be fully known. An individual’s behavior will be influenced by many factors and will often be surprising.
Additionally, the connections between systems are important. A complete study of project complexity would include separate studies of the individual complex systems along with a study of the interconnections between the systems. Each system is a network composed of connected nodes. Some nodes are more connected than others, and some connections are stronger than others.
Within a project organization, there are clusters, often called a small-world network. Most individuals belong to a small world where connectivity is pretty good. Connectivity between worlds is not nearly as robust.
Considering the behavior of an individual requires attention to a hierarchy of effects. Individuals are members of a subteam (their small world). Multiple subteams make up the project delivery organization, and the project delivery organization exists within an overall culture labeled “‘public”’ in Fig. 1.
The proposed study will include literature reviews, interviews with practicing engineers, and data collection from projects.
The literature reviews will encompass published work in social cognition, action science, complexity theory, communication theory (pragmatics), decision theory, sensemaking, and best practices for project management and control.
An early goal is to study the increases in complexity of the project design and the project organization that executes the plan.
Drivers of Complexity
Fig. 2 shows the interplay of factors hypothesized to affect the complexity of the project design and the design organization.
- Inherent project complexity—The nature of the project affects the complexity of the design. A fractured reservoir with no aquifer support will require more wells and yield a more complex subsea design. Complex fluids yield complex topsides and chemical treatment.
- Codes, standards, specification—Designs change as industry codes change. Operating companies and design firms develop standards and specifications to guide design efforts, in part to ensure compliance to applicable codes. How do individual operating company standards and specifications affect design complexity?
- Culture change—Cultures, in particular safety culture, change over time. How has design complexity changed with improving safety culture and other culture changes?
- Regulations—Regulations tend to become more onerous over time. How have new or modified regulations driven changes in complexity?
- Technology—Advancing technology is a driver of complexity. Computers and computerized control systems provide the capability to design things today that could not have been designed 30+ years ago. Improved manufacturing techniques and advanced materials provide unprecedented options to incorporate into designs. Telecommunications and project management tools allow project teams to be spread across the world.
- Project team preference—Every project team has a unique set of skills and preferences. Partners have different experiences and preferences. We make some things more complex just because we can; it can be difficult to resist the tendency to make designs as complicated as technologically possible.
- Resources—Projects are executed by people, and other resources are required. A lack of resources may affect the design and the design team complexity.
- Coordination—As the design team grows larger and geographically dispersed, coordination of efforts becomes more difficult and time-consuming.
FOR FURTHER READING
Mitchell, M. 2009. Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press.
Miller, J.H. and Page, S.E. 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton University Press.
Reid, D., Dekker, M., Paardekam, A.H.M. et al. 2014. Deepwater Development Non-Technical Risks—Identification and Management. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 October. SPE-170739-MS. http://dx/doi.org/10.2118/
THE COMPLEXITY STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
Please consider projects spaced over a period of time of at least a few years, preferably from 10 to 20 years. If you worked on two similar projects that can be compared, that would be preferable. If not, then try to imagine how the project you are working on now would have been different had it been done from 10 to 20 years ago. Consider a project you did from 10 to 20 years ago and imagine how it might be different if executed today
Answer only the question(s) that resonate with you and omit the ones that are less important. It is not necessary to provide a comprehensive answer.
Please send completed surveys to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Howard Duhon is the systems engineering manager at GATE and the SPE technical director of Projects, Facilities, and Construction. He is a member of the Editorial Board of Oil and Gas Facilities.
He can be reached at email@example.com
Delayed Project Sanctions in 2017 More Than Double the 2015–16 Count
Delayed final investment decisions during the final quarter of 2017 led to more than double the combined count in 2015 and 2016.
C-Innovation Forms Subsea Projects Group
C-Innovation formed a turnkey subsea projects group based in Edison Chouest Offshore’s Houston office. The vertically integrated network of affiliate companies will provide support for complex projects.
Effective Site-Based Project Portfolio Execution Requires Owner, Contractor Staffing Balance
Independent Project Analysis researchers took a closer look at site project system staffing approaches including full alliance, owner engineering, contractor engineering, and core staffing to determine the effect of staffing characteristics on capital project outcomes.
26 January 2018
12 February 2018
25 January 2018
30 January 2018