Managing Complex Projects: Deepwater Horizon Case Study

This report discusses the management of complex projects using the Deepwater Horizon case study. It explores the challenges faced and the application of knowledge management and the Diamond model. The report provides insights for practical implications.

Running head: MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
Deepwater Horizon Case Study
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note:

1
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
1. Introduction
Managing complex projects is one of the major aspects that is needed to be considered
on a priority basis for understanding all types of in built complexities. The major reasons that
are responsible for making this type of management of project difficult, mainly involve
performance and costs (Hayes & Bennett, 2011). The major indicators, which surround with
unpredictability in managing of a complex project are project timeline, budget or restraints,
project stakeholders, project teams and many more. The most significant skills that are
required for this type of complex project management are adaptability, expertise, leadership,
collaboration and communication. All of the mentioned skills are needed for fulfilling and
bringing effective management in any particular project. Thus, it is needed that management
of complex projects should be done properly so that goals and objectives of the project are
obtained in a better manner (Williams, 2013). The following report will be outlining a PfL of
Deepwater Horizon project with application of theories and practices of knowledge
management and Diamond model. Moreover, proper comparison of ideas to apply on the
project for learning for eventually raising practical implications will also be provided in this
report.
2. Discussion
2.1 Type of Complexity associated to PfL that affected Development of the Project
Acceding to Shenhar and Dvir (2007), the most significant challenge to manage any
kind of complex project is to achieve all the project goals within given constraints. The main
primary constraints of a project are project scope, budget, quality and even time taken to
complete the project work. A secondary constraint of project is to properly optimize
allocations of required inputs so that every previously defined objective is met (Fuchs &
Sandoval, 2013). The diamond model framework mainly emphasizes on effective explanation
of any particular project by considering four factors, namely technology, novelty, pace and
complexity.
The entire structure of the diamond model helps in analysing the respective project
whenever it is striving novelty, competing on speed, dealing with each and every
technological uncertainty and coping up with project constraints. Since, it is extremely
helpful in perfect assessment of the specified project after identification of all possible gaps
or challenges in the complex project, this particular diamond shaped framework is required
for selecting any type of appropriate and suitable action that can be utilized to that particular
project back to the track (Shenhar et al., 2005).
The four segments of this diamond model are novelty, pace, complexity and
technology and it is vital to analyse all the aspects of this model. Deepwater was approached
by its key stakeholders and hence it could be analysed on the basis of these four dimensions.
The main reason for the failure of this project was due to explosion on Deepwater Horizon
rig. Volume of oil escaping into sea was from damaged well that had capacity of 1000
barrels, however, US government released statement of over 60000 barrels of oil.

2
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
Figure 1: Diamond Model Framework
(Source: Nicholas & Steyn, 2017)
The entire case scenario of Deepwater Horizon could be easily and promptly analysed
on the basis of the above mentioned diamond model framework. The description of this
application of Diamond Model in Deepwater Horizon case study is provided below:
i) Novelty: This is the first dimension of Diamond model framework. It defines
regarding the new product and also represents about limit till what the potential customers
could be familiar to product and the method to use the service or product. Chang et al. (2009)
stated that, the three types of novelty products include derivative products, platform products
and breakthrough products. Each of these three types of novelty products is extremely
important and significant and should be analysed on a major basis. In the case study of
Deepwater Horizon, the novelty products are the platform products (Teixeira & Pereira,
2015). As per the platform products, these can be referred to as the new generations of all the
previously existing products and such products can easily replace the previous products in a
better established market segment. Oil here is the pre existing product that is required to be
used in a better established market segment. Such products are hence extremely vital for
analysing the entire scenario. Platform novelty products can even bring few major
effectiveness and efficiency in the organization. Moreover, this was the first time when such
a significant project became unsuccessful and was unmanageable (Rugman, Van Den Broec

3
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
& Verbeke, 1995). Oil was a novelty product as the customers were familiar with the product
type and it replaced the previous products. There are several types of oil quality, and hence it
was expected that Deepwater would be providing high quality of existing oil, however the
entire project became failure due to early execution without proper testing. The project goals
and objectives were also not fulfilled in a better manner and hence three major issues of
reliability of marketing research, specified marketing strategies for the product that is oil and
finally the time that is taken for defining as well as freezing of the product requirements. The
entire case or project of Deepwater Horizon became unsuccessful since the management was
unable to manage the project in an effective manner and hence it impacted on project
management (Joslin & Müller, 2015). The project was unsuccessful in respect to novelty
factor, since it was unsuccessful in providing high quality or advanced level quality of oil to
their users. Since it was a system project, the complexity was extremely high and several sub
systems were required to perform together. However, with the core objective of providing
high quality of oil, they ignored complexity of the project and hence without testing, the
project became failure.
ii) Technology: The second important and significant dimension of Diamond model
framework is technology. It is termed as one of the major and the most important and
significant aspect that is needed to be applied successfully so that all the applications could
be used in a better manner. The major and the most subsequent sources of the task
uncertainty in the specific project or organization are together called as technological
uncertainties. According to Nicholas and Steyn (2017), the technological uncertainty
comprises of one of the major and the most significant effect on several factors such as
interactions and communications, better designing and testing, needed number of all
designing cycles as well as respective timings of the designing freeze (de Carvalho, Patah &
de Souza Bido, 2015). The technological uncertainties also affect the entire technical
competency, which is eventually needed by the project members or project manager. There
are four distinctive levels or segments of technological uncertainties, which involve low
technological projects, medium technological projects, and high technological projects and
finally super high technological projects. Deepwater Horizon case study was a super high
technological project as according to this particular type of project, any new technology
should not be used in the initiation phase of the project. The major technical problems that
are being confronted by the project manager of Deepwater Horizon included cementing
procedure and hydrocarbons. The cement seal was faulty since the borehole base’s cement
has constantly been a failure that allowed oil to come out (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Thus, even
after trying the project became a massive failure according to technology dimension of
Diamond Model framework. The main reason for this type of failure is that the project
manager was unable to complete the phases and check impacts on designing and testing.
During testing, the project became failure and hence it is termed as unsuccessful for
technology aspect.
iii) Complexity: The third distinctive dimension of this specific diamond model
framework is the complexity of projects (Chang et al., 2009). It is the simplest methodology
that is highly required for defining major complexities with the help of using a hierarchical
framework system. Scope of the system is responsible for affecting project complexity to
high level. Furthermore, the entire project is also affected in this type of project. There are
three distinctive and vital complexity levels, which could be easily and promptly used to
distinguish within the several project management practices such as assembly projects,
system projects and array projects. There is a simple manner to properly define the several
levels of complexities by simply utilization of a hierarchical system framework or even sub
systems and the complexity of such projects majorly affect the project management and even

4
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
how to deal with the complexities in an effective manner (Teixeira & Pereira, 2015). After
analysing the entire case scenario of Deepwater Horizon with this particular complexity
dimension of Diamond model framework, it is being observed that it is a system project.
Complexity dimension of the model can be applied to the project to understand the detailed
description of the work (Geertzen et al., 2004). There were several distinctive modules and
elements, which were needed to perform a single functionality to produce oil to the entire
market of the USA. A system project can be successful when every subsystem or element is
working jointly to make it successful. However, it was absent in Deepwater due to
technological failure. The function was to complete oil spill. Due to this particular aspect, the
project became a failure and the project manager of Deepwater Horizon did not get a scope to
recover from their failure.
iv) Pace: The final important and significant dimension of this specific diamond
model framework is the pace or speed of projects (Williams, 2013). By undertaking the help
of this specific dimension, any particular project can be differed by the urgency and there are
four distinctive levels of pace, which include regular projects, fast and competitive projects,
time critical project and Blitz project. These levels have subsequent impacts on the autonomy
of project teams, decision making speed and even intensity of the top management
involvement. In the case scenario of Deepwater Horizon, after proper analysis, it is being
noted that this project can be termed as a time critical project and it was needed to be
executed in the provided project constraints of time and expenses (Nicholas & Steyn, 2017).
They wanted to complete the project as soon as possible and thus they did not consider about
security and budget was exceeded. In spite of effective project planning, the resource
consumption like time and expenses were overshooted and this project became a massive
failure. Since, Deepwater is a system project and complexity was high, it was required to be
completed within time. Instead, project was tried to be completed quickly and thus it became
a failure.
2.2 Description between Theories and Practices of Knowledge Management and
Explanation of Comparison and Contrast of Ideas for applying on PfL to raise Practical
Implications
The knowledge management within any type of complex project can be referred to as
the most vital and important to know regarding the present project position (Hansen et al.,
1999). Three important sections are present for the knowledge management for a project,
which are better understanding of knowledge nature, defining major strategies for knowledge
transferring and even for learning effectively (Prencipe & Tell, 2001). Moreover, a better
identification of mechanisms for sharing of knowledge is also being enhanced with the help
of knowledge management within the project. This knowledge management is being utilized
as one of the most important parts of business strategies, IT departments and even human
resource management (Fernie et al., 2003). Knowledge management helps in improving the
overall performances and also for gaining competitive advantages after successfully
implementing knowledge management in the respective project or organization.
The strategies for learning and knowledge transfer can be defined by linking
organizational analysis and knowledge analysis (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001). When
these two analyses are combined together, it eventually makes a knowledge transfer strategy
and which leads to certain knowledge transfer mechanisms.

5
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
Figure 2: Linking of Strategies of Knowledge Transfer and Learning
(Source: Davenport, De Long & Beers, 1998)
Alavi and Leidner (2001) stated that, the products and services segment include
standardized product or service, mature product or service, customized products or services
and finally innovative productive or service. The competitive capabilities include
standardization, control, empowerment and finally innovation and the business areas
eventually involve manufacturing, business controls, order entries, finance, distribution,
customer complaint management, advertising and new product development. When all of
three broad segments of the organizational analyses are being combined, majorly tacit kind of
knowledge or codified knowledge is eventually obtained. Within the respective
personalization or codified strategies, it is being analysed that the most appropriate and
perfect strategy for this specific project or case scenario of Deepwater Horizon is the
personalization strategy (Sengupta, Abdel-Hamid and Van Wassenhove, 2008). The reason
for applying this particular strategy in the case study is that major emphasis is being provided
over the dialogue amongst project team members. However, in this specific case study, the
managers of BP did not bother to check testing of cement and hence it caused major crashing
of the total oil drilling rig.
These managers also did not share the knowledge and undertook any idea from the
other workers and members and hence it lead to the project failure. Moreover, the entire
functionality of knowledge transfer is responsible to focus on the other significant activities
of primary knowledge and hence gaining certain learning levels (Davenport, De Long &
Beers, 1998). After analysis of the case study, it is being seen that due to lack of knowledge
transfer in the Deepwater Horizon case study, the workers did not have any idea of the
loopholes and gaps and it was the major reason for failure of this project. To complete the
project as soon as possible, the respective managers of the projects decided to not to share
these technical details with their co-workers (Fernie et al., 2003). For the core purpose of
raising practical implications for the case scenario of Deepwater Horizon, it is needed to
compare as well as contrast the major ideas and practices and hence bringing more
effectiveness in the project by eradication of all types of complexities and issues to a higher
level. The experience accumulation was also not in a proper manner and hence it is often
being considered as the most problematic aspect for the case scenario of Deepwater Horizon
(See Appendix). The various knowledge management strategies and the Diamond model
framework are required to be amalgamated together for completing the work and hence

6
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
gaining more efficiency from the entire project. As for personalization strategy, it was needed
to remove any type of issue that was previously present in the case scenario. Furthermore, the
workers of the project should have been informed beforehand that they want to complete the
project so that new effectiveness and efficiency are obtained without any type of complexity
and risk. This would have reduced the issues to a major level.
3. Conclusion and Strengths and Limitations of Models
Thus, conclusion can be drawn that complex projects like Deepwater Horizon are
quite vital to be managed. This is the core practice to initiate, plan, execute, control and even
close the entire team work to effectively achieve each and every goal for meeting each and
every success criterion at the respective time period. This above report has properly
demonstrated about a brief analyses of the entire case scenario of Deepwater Horizon. Proper
application of diamond model and knowledge management are being taken so that this entire
case study is being understood as well as analysed in the most efficient manner and even with
major effectiveness. After analysis of the case study, it is being observed that project became
unsuccessful in respect to four factors of Diamond model framework. It did not follow any of
the significant requirements of this model and hence turned out to be a failure.
It is being analysed that the major strengths of diamond model include management
of complex project whenever it is striving novelty, competing on speed, dealing with every
technological uncertainty and coping up with project constraints. The limitation of diamond
model includes excessive high cost and complexity in comparison to others. The major
strengths of knowledge management mainly involve managing complex projects on the basis
of managing knowledge and improving performances to a high level. Moreover, it helps to
gain competitive advantages and thus this case scenario of Deepwater Horizon is being
analysed in a better manner. Furthermore, the only limitation of knowledge management is
that there is no security of the information that is being transferred and it could be easily
intercepted by the attackers with wrong intentions. The major strengths of this project were
involving into oil spill segment and support from US government and the major limitations
were its pace and complexity as per Diamond model. They wanted to complete the project
faster and hence they did not consider about security and safety.

7
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, 107-136.
Chang, S. I., Peng, T. C., Hung, Y. C., Chang, I. C., & Hung, W. H. (2009, June). Critical
success factors of mobile commerce adoption: A study based on the system life cycle
and diamond model. In 2009 Eighth International Conference on Mobile
Business (pp. 126-130). IEEE.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge
management projects. Sloan management review, 39(2), 43-57.
de Carvalho, M. M., Patah, L. A., & de Souza Bido, D. (2015). Project management and its
effects on project success: Cross-country and cross-industry
comparisons. International Journal of Project Management, 33(7), 1509-1522.
Fernie, S., Gren, S., Weller, S. And Newcombe, R. (2003) Knowledge Sharing: context,
confusion and controversy, International Journal of Project Management, 21: 177-
187.
Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2013). The diamond model of open access publishing: Why
policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world
need to take non-commercial, non-profit open access serious. TripleC:
Communication, capitalism & critique, 11(2), 428-443.
Geertzen, J., Girard, Y., Morante, R., Van der Sluis, I., Van Dam, H., Suijkerbuijk, B., ... &
Bunt, H. (2004). The DIAMOND project. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on the
Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Catalog'04.
Hansen et al. (1999). What’s is your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business
Review, March-April.
Hayes, S. & Bennett, D. (2011) Managing projects with high complexity.
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology
and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of
Project Management, 33(6), 1377-1392.
Nicholas, J. M., & Steyn, H. (2017). Project management for engineering, business and
technology. Routledge.
Prencipe A & Tell F. (2001) Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge
codification in project-based firms, Research Policy 30: 1373-1394.
Rubenstein-Montano, B., Liebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B., Rebeck,
K., & Team, T. K. M. M. (2001). A systems thinking framework for knowledge
management. Decision support systems, 31(1), 5-16.
Rugman, A. M., Van Den Broec, J., & Verbeke, A. (Eds.). (1995). Beyond the diamond.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Sengupta, K., Abdel-Hamid, T.K. and Van Wassenhove, L. (2008) The Experience Trap,
Harvard Business Review, February, p. 94-101.
Shenhar, A. & Dvir, D. (2007) Reinventing Project Management—The Diamond approach to
successful growth and innovation, Boston: MA., Harvard Business School Press.

8
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: the diamond approach
to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business Review Press.
Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., Milosevic, D., Mulenburg, J., Patanakul, P., Reilly, R., ... &
Stefanovic, J. (2005). Toward a NASA-specific project management
framework. Engineering Management Journal, 17(4), 8-16.
Teixeira, C. S. B., & Pereira, L. L. F. (2015). Pereira Diamond: benefits management
framework. The International Journal of Business & Management, 3(3), 47.
Williams, T. M. (Ed.). (2013). Managing and modelling complex projects (Vol. 17).
Springer.

9
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
Appendix
1. Description of Main Characteristics of the project in terms of People, Technology,
Resources and Institutions
Oil drilling is a specific procedure, by which tubing is bored via the surface and hence
a well is being established. A pump is then connected to that specific tube before forcibly
removing the oil from underground. Deepwater Horizon project is considered as the most
noteworthy project that was being executed for oil drilling. The project turned out to be a
disaster and affected entire US government and several associated oil industries. Eleven
workers were killed on spot and around seventeen were injured. After two of this blow out,
oil rig was entirely submerged in the sea and hence connection of pipe to the well was
broken, disseminating oil for around 1300 miles. Since, the oil rig costs over five hundred
and sixty million US dollars, US government suffered major financial losses. The main
reason for such failure was that cement evaluation was being skipped for saving time and
completing the project in lesser time. Moreover, few other tests were also avoided and it led
to major issue of unsuccessfulness of the project of Deep Water Horizon.
2. Expectations of People from the Project in terms of Cost, Time and Performance
Deepwater Horizon was considered as one of the major projects that was supposed to
bring more effectiveness and efficiency in the oil industry. To gain alternative oil source was
an important expectation from project’s stakeholders such as BP and Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation. Maintenance of security and marine ecology was the next expectation.
Moreover, it was highly expected to bring new techniques for oil transportation and to reduce
expenses and time to a higher level. Furthermore, technical difficulty eradication was the next
significant expectation from the project’s stakeholders so that project is completed in much
smother method.
3. Real Outcomes of the Project of Deepwater Horizon
BP was majorly hold responsible for this particular oil spill as per scheduled report.
Pressure was also given on Halliburton as concrete cap was defective in nature, however
major allegation was on BP as they completed decision making process. Project members
recruited by BP were also responsible as they ignored each and every warning of oil spill. US
government charged BP and Transocean for violating the acts of clean water and oil
pollution. Moreover, all of these above mentioned organizations eventually remained
responsible as security of the workers were not being considered under any circumstance.
Apart from workers, marine environment and birds were affected in the oil spill. The major
technical problems that are being confronted by the project manager of Deepwater Horizon
included cementing process and hydrocarbons. The cement seal was faulty since the borehole
base’s cement has constantly been a failure that allowed oil to come out. Furthermore, there
were even few significant potential failed mechanism. In case of hydrocarbon, while
displacing mud with sea water, hydrocarbons flow substantially led to well being blown up
while temporarily abandoning the procedure. Other significant technical problems involved
negative pressure test and blow out preventer. It was being analysed that for over fifty
minutes control was lost when hydrocarbon flow started and tried to implement this blow out
preventer.
4. Differences between Expected and Real Outcomes of Deepwater Horizon
The first dissimilarity can be stated that it was expected that the pressure tests would
be positive while displacing mud with sea water, however the test results turned out to be

10
MANAGING COMPLEX PROJECTS
negative and it proved it majorly lacked safety related decisions. The second dissimilarity
was that it was expected from the stakeholders that blind shear ram or BSR would work
effectively with three variable bore ram, since all of them were being designed as one control
system for sealing stack of BOP. In reality, this blind shear ram was a major failure for
sealing the well. Moreover, the alarm or gas detection system even did not work out properly
as expected.
5. Project Initiator and Reason for Initiating the Project of Deepwater Horizon
The respective person, who starts a project, is termed as project initiator. Budget and
time are the most crucial parts of a project and these two are set by a project initiator. Project
initiator after involvement of some of the major project’s stakeholders are subsequently
responsible for selecting the manager of project before providing authorization that particular
individual. In this project work of Deep water horizon, organization of BP started it with the
help of Transocean as operator. Oil was being brought out in much smoother method before
providing high benefits and profits to the organization. Each and every project manager and
member was solely responsible for making the project work and to ensure that the best results
are being out. In spite of such huge and massive planning, project became unsuccessful and
BP was hold responsible for the entire phenomenon.
6. Main Stakeholders of the Project of Deepwater Horizon
Since the organization of BP eventually comprised of more than 65 percentage of
stakeholder shares, every organizational member of this company, who was an important part
of this project is termed as a stakeholder. The drilling engineer as well as respective company
man, who used to work in day shift are also termed as the stakeholders in this particular
project of Deepwater Horizon. The second important and noteworthy stakeholder of the
project, who held 25 percentage of stakeholder shares were Anadarko Petroleum Corporation.
The other vital stakeholders involved here were Brian Model, Douglas Brown, Transocean’s
significant managers, project’s main mechanic, designer of Macondo well, Captain Kulcha
and every member attached to the project. Other major stakeholders of Deepwater Horizon
project include rig contractor, Moex and Halliburton.