The Case of Deepwater Horizon Disaster

This report investigates the case of Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Mexican Gulf, analyzing project complexities and relevant theories.

Running head: THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
The Case of Deepwater Horizon Disaster
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author Note

1THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
Executive summary
The Deep-Horizon oil spill and blowout in the Mexican Gulf occurred because of the well planning.
This has never included enough cement to occur between the productions of 7-inch casings. In this
report, the case of Deepwater Horizon that caused in sudden death of Mexican Gulf. The study
investigates the type of relevant project complexities. In this way, various concepts and theories are
analyzed in this analysis.

2THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
Table of Contents
Component 1: Introduction:...................................................................................................................3
Component 2: An evaluation of the project complexity:.......................................................................4
Component 3: Discussion on the proper selection of the model:..........................................................7
Component 4: Conclusion:..................................................................................................................11
References:..........................................................................................................................................13

3THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
Component 1: Introduction:
The following evaluation deals with the oil spill and blowout of the Deep-water Horizon.
This took place in the Mexican Gulf. It happened because of the flawed plan. It never took into
consideration of the sufficient cement that has been taking place between the 7-inch casings of
production. Apart from this, it also included a 9 7/8 inch casing of protection. Here, it was seen that
the overall failure of BOP or Blowout Preventer was fund to be presumed. It has been vital and a
secondary issue.
The “Hyundai Heavy Industries developed the platform of 560 million dollars”. This as
situated in South Korea. It got finished in 2001. Further, this was owned by the Transocean. It was
operated within the Marshalese flag for convenience. This has been within the lease to the BP till
2013’s September. During the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon has been over Mississippi Canyon
Block of 252. It has been denoted as the Macondo Prospect. This was situated within the United
States area of the Mexican Gulf.
Moreover, this has been about 66 kilometers or 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana. The main
issues are highlighted at this moment. During March 2008, the rights of mineral for drilling the oil
over the Macondo project has been purchased by the BP. It has been the lease sale of Minerals
Management service. Here, the platform commenced the drill during February 2010. This has been
at the water depth within about 5,000 feet or 1,500 meters (Hayes and Bennett 2011). During the
explosion, the rig was found to be drilling the exploratory well. Here, the planned well has been
drilled to about 18,360 feet or 56,00 meters below the sea level. It has been suspended and plugged
for various subsequent finishing of the producer of subsea.

4THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
Moreover, it was seen that the casing of the production had been run. Then, it was cemented
during the accident time. As the cementing was done, this was because of the test for the integrity
and the cement plug. This s for setting the temporary abandonment of the well (Atkinson, Crawford
and Ward 2006).
The following study involves the case of Macondo Well and Deepwater Horizon. This
resulted in the sudden death of the Mexican Gulf. Here, the report demonstrates the kind of related
project complexity. Apart from this, it was seen that various theories and concepts that are been
associated are investigated in the study.
Component 2: An evaluation of the project complexity:
This project complexity is related to the current case. For the current study of Deepwater
Horizon , the diamond model is chosen. This identifies e various pillars of researches such as rivalry
and strategy, firm structure, supporting and related industries, conditions of demands and conditions
of factors (Geraldi, Maylor and Williams 2011). Here, one should be assessing the viability of the
case that has been competing under a specific international market. This has been utilized as a
comparative tool of analysis. This to identify what country has been in a specific firm that is suitable
for expanding into.
Here, some of the pillars mentioned above has been focusing on the macroeconomic scenario
for finding whether the demand is there with the factors required for the production. Further, it has
also involved the extreme endings of the overall value chain. Here, another pillar has been focusing
on particular relationships. This has included the supporting sectors with a specific case being
analyzed. Further, the ultimate pillar has been looking at the strategies response of the firm or
macroeconomics (Snowden and Boone 2007). Again, various strategies are to be considered for the

5THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
rivalry and structure of the industry. Thus it has been trying to highlight the sectors of the
competitive benefits along with competitive weaknesses. This can through looking at the suitability
for specific situations of a specific market.
Further, the various components of the system include the chances, government, rivalry,
structure and strategy. This also involves the demand conditions and supporting and related sectors
with factor endowment. Again, the factor endowments can be seen into two types. This involves the
resource of home ground or largely specialized resources. Besides, there are natural endowments
(Buchanan 1991).
For the present evaluation, it is useful to analyze the different dimensions. These are relevant
for the uncertainty of the project. Apart from this, it is also found that t it has been possessing the
pace and complexity. Besides, the technology and novelty are considered here. Moreover, the basis
of the originality has indicated various complexities that are within the aims of the overall goal of
the project. Again, it has also been found to be including the different kinds of uncertainties. These
has been existing under the market (Pinto 2000). Again, it has been useful to calculate the methods
in which the project is helpful for the clients. This has been committed to the users, who are present
in the market. Moreover, it also includes the various methods. These are well defined and clear.
These are for the early stages in the process of product requirements. Apart from this, it has
comprised of three kinds. This involves the derivative, platform and breakthroughs. Using novelty is
useful to undertake various decisions. Moreover, it has required the time to freeze the product
requirements. This has included the trust with accuracy and reliability for marketing the data (Rice,
O’Connor and Pierantozi 2008).
Moreover, there have been benefits with technology. This is one of the essential cause that
the current model is chosen. This has been highlighting the project levels of various technology

6THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
uncertainty. Besides, it has been found through the method through which the technology is
required. Further, there are different types of technology that involves the low tech, medium tech and
high tech (Boddy and Paton 2004). Analyzing technology helps undertake decisions on various
technical skills. These are required by the project managers and team and intensity on various
technical activities. This has also needed time to freeze the design (Hansen et al. 1999). Moreover, it
has required three types of complications. Apart from this, this has involved the assembly, systems
along with the arrays. Understanding the complicacy has helped decide the project organization
structure and the method that can be controlled. On the other hand, there is the pace. Here, the base
has been referring to project urgencies taking place. The pace of four types (Shenhar and Dvir 2007).
Again, this involves the time-critical properties that are also regular and fast. Analyzing the speed is
helpful for decking the measures to undertaking the planning. Apart from this, it has involved how
and when that is being reviewed. It has been a useful way of autonomy for the team. Again, the level
is helpful for getting involved for top management (Buchanan and Badham 2008).

7THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
Technology
Pace
Complexity Novelity
High cost
High technology
Medium technology
Low techology
Low tech
Medium Tech
Lw tech
Regular activities
Completive and fast
Critical Time
Biltz
Data drive Platform Different Break through
Arrays Systems Assemblies
Figure 1: “Illustrating the diamond model for the current scenario”
(Source: Created by Author)
Component 3: Discussion on the proper selection of the model:
It can be said that at the very first step, the novelty is required to be taken into consideration.
It is useful to find out how important the product has been for the present market. This can be
demonstrated in the manner where the product comprises of the markets and potential users. Further,
it is also seen that the dimension has been determining for the clients (Davies and Hobday 2005).
It is also seen that product novelty has been including various types. It has involved the derivative,
platforms and breakthroughs. Further, there is a product of the platform. There have been new
generations for the current line of products. It has been replaced by the previous products within the
market sources that are well-established. Then, there are various breakthrough products. They are

8THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
new to the world. They are found to be transferring the latest ideas for different products that have
never been fetched by the customers (Fernie et al. 2003).
Further, there has been technological uncertainties. It has included the design timing and
needs of design cycles. Here, the various levels have consisted of the uncertainties of technology.
For instance, the case of a construction project can be considered here. After that, there has been
various types of the medium-tech projects. This can be utilized with the primary and present
technologies (Davies, Gann and Douglas 2009).
Further, there is complexity. It is been confirmed as an effective and easy method. This is
helpful for defining various types of levels of different complications. It is helpful to use hierarchical
systems. The project complexities have been related directly to the system scope (Saynisch 2010).
Again various complexity levels can be used for differentiating the practices of the project manager.
Moreover, it has been found to be including the different types the assembly, various systems and
different arrays.
Further, there has been an assembly project. It has involved the generation of collecting
different components, modules and elements. It has been assimilated within a single unit or entity. It
is done with one function (Prencipe, Davies and Hobday 2005). Apart from this, system projects has
involved the complex collections of different interactive elements and subsystems. It is done through
different tasks to meet the specific necessities of various operations.
Further, there has been various array of projects. This consists of a broad set of systems. To
achieve the common cause, they are found to be working together.
Again, it has been also seen that they are competitive and fast. It has also included the blitz
and it has been found to be the critical for time and regular. Apart from this, there have been various

9THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
regular projects that have included efforts. Here, the timing has not been complex for getting fast
success for the companies (Flyvbjerg, Garbuio and Lovallo 2009). Again, this fast and completive
projects has been a popular project. This is performed by different industries and various
organizations that have been profit driven.
Further, the missing of deadlines has indicated the project failures. Next, there has been the
Blitz project (Kotter 1995).
Moreover, they are seen as a crisis project. For resolving the crisis very fast, there are the
success criteria. The intention is to generate a context-free system. This has never been relying on
the context-free systems. This has been relying on the industry or particular business. In this way,
one can find out various couples of vital sources about the uncertainty. Thus, in this manner, the
diamond model is developing (Miller and Lessard 2000).
Providing justification and demonstrating the reason why the chosen theory is found to be useful to
understand Deep-water Horizon project case:
The above diamond model for the Deep-water Horizon has been a structured model. In this
way, the managers have been using the decisions that are required to be done. It has been about
projects and thus it has been running. Apart from this, the diamond framework is also found to be
nludidng dimensions for Deepwater Horizon. In this manner, the novelty has been useful for finding
the newness at the present market. Apart from this, e newness has included technology and various
technical uncertainties. In this way, complexities have been there to indicate the case of the project
(Davies and Hobday 2005).
Again, the speed has been found to be referring to the way the complex time frame has been
working. This has also involved the recovery plan of Deepwater Horizon has been resent. However,

10THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
there are five variables found. They have been governing the different success of the project during
the time, quality, cost, scope and risk. Apart from this, the framework of the diamond has helped
differentiate the projects. This has also been helpful to find the risks and control the relevancies.
Challenges:
It is seen that the diamond model has led to an adaptive type of project management. The
approach has been on success, flexibility and adaptive system. According to the adaptive approach,
the projects are considered as the collection of activities needing to be ended under time. Again, the
project has been on the bass of business-related processes for delivering the outcomes of the
business. Instead, it is analyzed that the projects comprise of different business related processes for
delivering business outcomes. However, the approach has denoted the changes in thoughts. Here,
one is inevitable for meeting the current day challenges in the organizations (Fuda and Badham
2011). Again, no additional system has been able to react to the responses and effective use of mode
has declined the outcomes. Thus hey have been able to gain the home runs from various projects.
These are applicable to those approaches. This model, when adopted, has been affecting the planning
and executing of projects. In this way, they have been able to focus on the attention for meeting the
time and budget (Stoelsnes 2007).
Strengths:
It has included the method of the way in which the projects have been selected and resources
have been allocated. It has been for the overall type of business. It is to manage more than one kind
of project. In this way, one can avoid dealing with various issues of portfolios of project
management (Weick and Sutcliffe 2015). Besides, it is seen that the overall management is found to
be comprising of hazardous and problematic task that has been regarded as the controversial one for
the business. It is defined as the actions and decisions as they are seen for selection and eradiating

11THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
the current projects. It has been including the gathering of present projects and then allocating
resources amount the project effectively (Owen, Burstein and Mitchell 2004). In this way, one can
allocate resources needed for all the projects. It has been based on various goals and strategic
policies. Thus, the policy has been depending on the expected pros and cons with various values
from all the projects. It has included competitive situations, industry trends, scenario and decisions.
In this manner, one can largely depend on various competitive cases and the lifecycle stages.
Further, it has been highly reliable on the strategic plan of the business. As the business is
found to be growing, one an easily make allocation for the higher portion of the cell that has been
external and strategic. Thus, it can decrease the consolidation and costs (Roberto, Bohmer and
Edmondson 2006). Thus, the managers can make an allocation of the resources for different groups.
Weaknesses:
Using various dimensions of NTCP, different distinctions taking place among the operations
and strategies can be investigated (De Meyer, Loch and Pich 2002). Again the complexity has been
regarding the investment levels. However, the rise in complicacy is regarding the complexities of
probable coordination and integration. Thus, the technology has provided the scopes of effective
performance that the prior necessities. Thus it has been delivering the abilities for performing the
latest tasks (Loch, DeMeyer and Pich 2006).
Component 4: Conclusion:
From the study it can be concluded by saying that the disaster rate that occurred at BP
Deepwater Horizon Spill has been truly and highly catastrophic in its nature. Besides, it is also seen
from the study that that some of the projects as been certain. They are also fixed and highly
simplistic for the present time. Moreover, they have included the changes, predictableness and

12THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
involves for dealing with uncertainties and complexities. In this way, the NCTP model has resulted
in overcoming the problems of Deepwater Horizon. In this way, it has been useful for delivering
disciplined tools for assessing unexpected outcomes and project risks. This helped the managers for
undertaking various decisions about projects. In this way, they have been able to run. Hence, it has
been helpful for seeking time and stop the necessities products and find the bureaucracy and
formality levels. Here, they are needed to be managed. This has been easing the process for planning
and then deploying strategies, as they are implemented.

13THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
References:
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L. and Ward, S. (2006) Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope
of project management, International Journal of Project Management, 24: 687-698.
Boddy, D. and Paton, R. (2004) Responding to competing narratives: lessons for project managers,
International Journal of Project Management, 22: 225-233.
Buchanan D. (1991) Vulnerability and agenda: Context and process in project management, British
Journal of Management, 2:121-132.
Buchanan D. and Badham R. (2008) Power, Politics and Organizational Change, Sage, London,
Second Edition. (Chapters 1 and 2) [South Bank Library Call HF5386.5.B83 1999].
Cicmil, S.and Hodgson, D. (2006) Making Projects Critical: an Introduction, In D. Hodgson and S.
Cicmil (Eds.) Making Projects Critical, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Chapter 1, pp. 1-11.
Cooke-Davies, T., Cicmil, S., Crawford, L and Richardson, K. (2007) We’re not in Kansas anymore,
Toto: Mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project
management, Project Management Journal, 38(2): 50-61.
Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (2005) The Business of Projects, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press (Ch 4: Systems integration and competitive advantage). [eBook is available on-line from the
Library].
Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (2005) The Business of Projects, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press (Ch 7: Learning in the project business).

14THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
Davies, A., Gann, D. and Douglas, T. (2009) Innovation in Megaprojects: Systems integration at
London Heathrow terminal 5, California Management Review, 51(2): 101-125.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C. and Pich, M. (2002) Managing Project Uncertainty: From variation to chaos,
MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2): 60-67.
Fernie, S., Gren, S., Weller, S. And Newcombe, R. (2003) Knowledge Sharing: context, confusion
and controversy, International Journal of Project Management, 21: 177-187.
Flyvbjerg, B., Garbuio, M. and Lovallo, D. (2009) Delusion and Deception in Large Infrastructure
Projects: Two models for explaining and preventing executive disaster, California Management
Review, 51(2): 170-192.
Fuda, P. and Badham, R. (2011) Fire, Snowball, Mask, Movie: How leaders spark and sustain
change, Harvard Business Review, November, 89(11): 145-148
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H. and Williams, T. (2011) Now, let’s make it really complex (complicated) – A
systematic review of the complexities of projects, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 31(9): 966-990
Hansen et al. (1999) What’s is your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review,
March-April.
Hayes, S. and Bennett, D. (2011) Managing projects with high complexity, In T. Cooke-Davies (Ed.)
Aspects of complexity: Managing projects in a complex world, Atlanta: Project Management
Institute.
Kotter J. (1995) Leading change: Why transformations efforts fail? Harvard Business Review, 73(2),
March-April: 11-20

15THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
Loch, C., DeMeyer, C. and Pich, M. (2006) Managing the Unknown, New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons.
Miller, R. and Lessard, D. (2000) The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects,
Massachusetts, The MIT Press (Introduction and Chapter 1).
Owen, J., Burstein, F. and Mitchell, S. (2004) Knowledge Reuse and Transfer in a Project
Management Environment, Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 6(4): 21-35.
Pinto J. (2000) Understanding the role of politics in successful project management, International
Journal of Project management, 18: 85-91.
Prencipe, A., Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (2005) The Business of Systems Integration, Oxford
University Press (Chapter 16: Integrated solutions: The changing business of system integration).
Rice, M., O’Connor, G.C. and Pierantozi, R. (2008) Implementing a learning plan to counter project
uncertainty, MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2): 54-62.
Roberto, M. Bohmer, R. and Edmondson, A. (2006) Facing Ambiguous Threats, Harvard Business
Review, November.
Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (2007) Reinventing Project Management—The Diamond approach to
successful growth and innovation, Boston: MA., Harvard Business School Press (Chapters 4, 5, 6,
7). [South Bank Library Call HD69.875S52 2007. eBook is also available on-line from the Library].
Snowden, D. and Boone, M. (2007) A leader’s framework for decision making, Harvard Business
Review, November.
Weick, K. and Sutcliffe (2015) Managing the Unexpected, John Wiley & Sons, Third Edition,
(Chapters 1 and 2). [eBook is available on-line from the Library].

16THE CASE OF DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
Weick, K. and Sutcliffe (2015) Managing the Unexpected, John Wiley & Sons, Third Edition,
(Chapters 3-7).