The scale and scope of the project
With regard to project management, the scale and scope of a project involve all the information that is required to initiate a project and all other features that could be in line with requirements of stakeholders (Kerzner 2013, Lewis 2005). The project manager and other team members met stakeholders to brief them about the project.
A seismic survey was conducted in order to accurately identify the location of oil reserves. Afterwards, personnel were involved in drilling wells that were characterised by certain measurements. It was important for the team to establish flow lines that could link wells to block stations, which were connected to a storage terminal. In order to ensure effective transportation of oil, the lead manager was keen on the construction of roads that were built at a cost of 0.15 million USD per kilometre. The whole project was estimated to cost over 270 million USD.
Project managers are required to adopt systems that are aimed at increasing the chances of success of a project (Meredith & Mantel Jr 2011). Project systems could be either cheap or expensive to execute, depending on various factors. An organisational system was crucial in putting in place the right workforce that could help to achieve the desired outcomes. The transportation system was aimed at achieving an effective movement of oil products from wells to the storage terminal. In addition, a system of wells was essential in locating the petroleum reservoir.
Importance of collaboration
Different studies have identified the roles that are played by collaboration among team members in a project (Dvir, Raz & Shenhar 2003). Although different departments in a big project of an organisation conduct different activities, they are all aimed at achieving a common goal (Al-Harbi 2001). In the context of the completed oil project, the collaboration resulted in coherence because all departmental heads worked together to identify issues and propose ways of addressing them. Furthermore, collaboration was important in ensuring that project resources were shared among different business functional areas.
The emergency plan
When project managers are implementing a project, they are aware of various natural and technological disasters that could arise (Eisenman, Cordasco, Asch, Golden & Glik 2007). With regard to oil exploration, life-threatening disasters could negatively impact families and performance outcomes of oil drilling companies. Thus, it is important for management teams to adopt emergency plans that are geared towards achieving the following:
- Preventing fatalities and work-related injuries
- Reducing damage to equipment
- Protecting the surroundings and the community
- Accelerating the performance of normal operations
Technological disasters include the following: fire, loss of electrical power, release of toxic chemicals, explosions, and loss of water supply (Watkins & Bazerman 2003). On the other hand, natural disasters include floods, severe storms, earthquakes, and severe extremes in temperature (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis & Wisner 2004; Van Aalst 2006). It is important to note that some events might cause other events to occur. For example, an exploding chemical might cause a fire that might lead to structural failure. In addition, an earthquake could be the cause of many technological disasters (Fox, White, Rooney & Rowland 2007).
The emergency plan adopted by the project management team involved four parts. First, possible emergencies, appropriate actions, procedures, and resources to address disasters were identified. Second, the plan contained a detailed list of personnel that was characterised by contact information, duties and responsibilities of all workers.
Third, structural plans of the plants were made available to managers and personnel in all departments. Fourth, large-scale maps were adopted to show evacuation routes that could be used during disasters. Thus, it is apparent that the project was conducted using the standards of emergency preparedness that could be used to respond to natural and technological disasters.
Al-Harbi, KM, 2001, ‘Application of the AHP in project management’, International journal of project management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 19-27.
Blaikie, P, Cannon, T, Davis, I, & Wisner, B, 2004, At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, Routledge, London, United Kingdom.
Dvir, D, Raz, T, & Shenhar, AJ, 2003, ‘An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 89-95.
Eisenman, DP, Cordasco, KM, Asch, S, Golden, JF, & Glik, D, 2007, ‘Disaster planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: lessons from Hurricane Katrina’, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 109-115.
Fox, MH, White, GW, Rooney, C, & Rowland, JL, 2007, ‘Disaster Preparedness and Response for Persons With Mobility Impairments Results From the University of Kansas Nobody Left Behind Study’, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 196-205.
Kerzner, HR, 2013, Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Lewis, JP, 2005, Project Planning, Scheduling & Control, 4E. McGraw-Hill Pub. Co., New York, NY.
Meredith, JR, & Mantel Jr, SJ, 2011, Project management: a managerial approach, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Van Aalst, MK, 2006, ‘The impacts of climate change on the risk of natural disasters’, Disasters, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 5-18.
Watkins, M. D, & Bazerman, MH, 2003, ‘Predictable surprises: The disasters you should have seen coming’, Harvard business review, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 72-85.