Deepwater Horizon Project Study: Risk Management and Organizational Maturity

Deepwater Horizon Project Study
Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1
General Systems Management..............................................................................................................1
Organizational Structures, Forms, and Culture......................................................................................2
Engineering Risk Management..............................................................................................................2
Portfolio Alignment & Business Value...................................................................................................3
Portfolio Management Process Cycle....................................................................................................4
Organizational Maturity........................................................................................................................5
Conclusions............................................................................................................................................6
References.............................................................................................................................................6
Introduction
Managing complex engineering projects that are large scale
such as Deep water horizon can be very difficult and can pose
several risks that can also be disastrous. In the case of
Deepwater horizon, a major set back was received because
missing some major tests on the cement construction
completion. The project involved drilling sea surface for oil and
gas extraction. This report explores the case of the project in
detail exploring the company as well as the project to identify
how risks had occurred and how they should have been
managed.
General Systems Management
In the Gulf of Mexico, 33,000 ton rig called Deepwater Horizon
was construction that had 20 stories constructed over the top
deck. The project was constructed to drill the 252 Canyon block
of Mississippi that had a large oil and gas reservoir inside. The
drilling was done on the Macondo well and the project was
expected to be completed in 51 days within the budget of
$96.2 million. However, over the time, initial plans that were
built got modified because of the knowledge that engineers
would gather about the geological formations in the region

demanding change of plan. This not just delayed the work but
also increased the cost for the organization.
Deepwater horizon was one of the biggest engineering project
failures that had occurred because of the engineering fault. The
mud and water came from inside and spilled over the deck
increasing the pressure on the structure resulting into major
multiple explorations that destroyed the whole rig resulting into
not just the failure of the construction but also damaging many
lives and causing oil spill in the water. This report would, make
an attempt to explore the case so that some approaches to
such complex project management can be identified in the
cases and recommendations can be made on what could have
prevented the major disaster that had happened in the
company (Burggren, et al. 2015).
Organizational Structures, Forms, and Culture
The stakeholder analysis model can be used for identifying the
level of influence each stakeholder on the project carries. The
stakeholders of the project included testing engineers that
have high influence but low interests, workers with high
interest but low influence, and the project manager with high
influence as well as the impact. A differential approach was
required to be taken to manage these influences and interest of
the stakeholders. However, the highest influencers were take
care of while the engineers were left out to only follow the
orders (Bryant 2014).
The major stakeholders of the Deep Water Horizon project
were:
 Brian Morel who was the drilling engineer and was
responsible for carrying out the drill work
 Robert Kaluza was the daytime BP who monitored the
drilling work
 Ronald Sepulvado was the site leader and supervised the
whole work at the rig

 John Guide was the team leader who guided the team on
execution and helped them resolve any issues that
prevented the work
 David Sims was the Operations manager who was to
check the results of the tests conducted and give a go
head on the work.
 Douglas Brown was the Chief mechanic who was approve
the technical results of the project to suggest if the
project was safe to go head.
 Captain Kuchta was the project owner and had a major
say in taking major decisions about the project including if
the team should approve the results and go ahead with
drilling.
 Micah Sandell was The Crane operator who was involved
in the drilling work and was responsible for handling the
crane
 Vidrine was another BP involved in the drilling work at the
site
 Mike Williams who was the chief electronic technician was
one person responsible for the complete assessment of
the test results and was the master of his job and was
responsible for any risks or damages that could happen
on the project (Ingersoll, Locke and Reavis 2012)
Engineering Risk Management
For understanding the risks on the project, Diamond model can
be used here. The model is based on the PMBOK framework
and identifies four risk dimensions that include novelty,
technology, complexity, and pace. Novelty relates to the
product produced and its relating with the customer and the
initial requirements of the project. It can be relative,
breakthrough or platform and can help team assess the time
requirements for producing accurate results and fulfil all the
project requirements.