System Thinking: The Case of Macondo Blowout

This paper discusses the application of system thinking in the context of the Macondo blowout and highlights the loopholes in leadership, technology, communication, and procedures. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between various components of a system to effectively manage complex problems.

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
1
System Thinking: The Case of Macondo Blowout
Introduction
System thinking is a key trait exhibited by top world leaders and top business managers
across the globe. Simple systematic thinking tools are often used by project managers to frame
and develop systematic and accurate solutions to the most complex problems in project
management (Sheffield, Sankaran, & Haslett, 2012). Within a system, the various components
are related to one another and are designed to work towards achieving a common objective
(Ladyman, Lambert, & Wiesner, 2013). It is therefore very important to understand the
relationship between the various components of any system in order to understand how it
operates.
The world we live in today has evolved continuously over the years. The modern
innovations that drive the world economies were at some point ideas brought forth by the leading
critical thinkers in the society like Albert Einstein (Patel, 2018). This class of people took over
leadership roles and created everything from nothing at all. Today, they are remembered through
theorems named after them and the books they had written to explain their findings, whether
scientific, social or economic.
Various industries including mining, banking, advertising, chemicals, and even
governments have adopted the concept of project management in their operations (Kerzner &
Kerzner, 2017). In project management, systems thinking in a very fundamental component. It is
applied by the managers to solve complex problems that arise in line of duty. A good case where
systems thinking could have had a great impact is the Macondo blowout. Should there have been

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
2
better coordination and precaution, the eleven lives claimed by this disaster may have been
saved.
The primary objective of this paper is to explain ways in which systems thinking could
have been applied in the context of the Macondo blowout in order to contain the situation. The
paper highlights the main loopholes identified in the manner in which this disaster was managed,
some of which could have been avoided should there have been proper precaution and advanced
management skills. The various aspects under which systems thinking concept could have been
applied include leadership, technology, communication, risk assessment, employee management,
and selection of the contractor among other areas.
To open the discussion, we proceed to start the discussion on how technology played a
role in escalating the Macondo blowout.
Technology
Drilling a well by the deep-water operators is certainly a very complex exercise. As such,
it not only needs very qualified personnel to execute but also a sophisticated technology with the
necessary precautionary measures to have the process under control. Some of the key features
that would he keep the process in check include an off show camera to keep track of the
activities in the rig, highly sensitive sensors to sense presence of hydrocarbons in the well borne,
automated alarm systems to notify the team should there be unusual occurrences, and an
electronic system that calculates the basic well monitoring calculations (Graham, et al., 2011). If
the technology used has such features, then it would be possible to reduce the risk of exposing
not only the workers but also the surrounding environments to disasters like one observed during
the Macondo blowout (Oort, Friedheim, Pierce, & Lee, 2011).

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
3
According to the report on the Macondo blowout presented to the President of the
United States, the contractor who was tasked with this important exercise lacked quite a number
of the key elements mentioned above. For instance, there was no monitoring mechanism to track
the activities on site (Smith, Kincannon, Lehnert, Wang, & Larrañaga, 2013). Also, basic
monitoring calculations were done manually, exposing the results to large margins of error and
making the process very slow. They also lacked an emergency alert mechanism to notify the
team should there be an unusual occurrence throughout the process. This factor not only
contributed to the actual occurrence of the disaster, but also to its huge negative impact. Due to
the ac of an efficient emergency response mechanism, eleven innocent lives were lost and
several injured (Graham, et al., 2011). The disaster also had a huge impact on the surrounding
environment.
If only the technology used was up to date with key features mentioned above, the impact or
even occurrence of this disaster would have been contained. The technology was however not
the only area not well handled, the project could have been better if there was good leadership
for the project team (John, 2016).
Leadership
According to the report published by Chief Counsel in regards to the Macondo disaster,
there was a consistent lack of good leadership sis among the managers from BP Engineers. This
was seen in various circumstances including lack of accountability, constant conflict between
managers, irregular reshuffles, lack of teamwork and coordination between the different
functions in the same business unit (Bartlit, Sankar, Sean, Graham, & Reilly, 2011).

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
4
The top managers often disagreed on who should be accountable for some of the most
critical decisions in the operation. The BP Engineers also disagreed with the Macondo team on
who would own the well after the kick.
To make the situation worse, in between the operation period the BP management carried
out an organizations restructuring which saw certain staff members promoted to various
positions and the separation of BP Engineers to operate as a separate and independent function
from the Macondo team. Promotions were done without consideration of the personal
qualifications of individuals. These initiatives resulted in delays, lack of order and coordination
between the two teams as every function struggled to show that they were in control. The
decision-making process also became longer as a result of the reorganization.
These wrangles played a role in the Macondo disaster. Should there have been proper and
accountable leadership within the team, chances are that the situation could have been noticed
earlier enough and appropriate measures are taken to contain it. Research has shown that many
projects fail due to lack of proper leadership from the managers (Anantatmula, 2010). This is
attributed to the fact that where there is poor leadership, there is no motivation in the team. As a
result, they are not adequately prepared mentor to counter challenges they may face in the project
later during its implementation (Yanga, Huang, & Wu, 2011). This is was aced in the team
undertaking the Macondo drilling project, thus resulting in the fatal disaster. Other than
leadership, a problem of communication was also noted within the team.
Communication
More often, the different groups involved in the Macondo project accessed critical
information but failed to share such information with the other groups involved in decision

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
5
making within the project (Bartlit, Sankar, Sean, Graham, & Reilly, 2011). This led to most
decision makers using incomplete information to make very critical decisions about the project.
Decisions made based on inadequate information usually expose the project to a lot of risks
(Chai, Liu, & W.T. Ngai, 2013).
For instance, even though the BP onshore engineers being aware of the risk that the
project would be exposed to, they completely failed to share such critical information with the
team on site. The team also failed to eighteen their counterparts involved in pressure testing
about the cementing-related risk despite having that critical piece of information (Norazahara,
Khan, Veitch, & MacKinnon, 2014).
Also, even though the Macondo team ought to have asked the expert opinion from
completion engineers in regards to whether they should run a long string or run a liner, this was
not done (Bartlit, Sankar, Sean, Graham, & Reilly, 2011). It was not clear when the staff in the
rig should consult with those on the shore. This information, despite how important it is to ensure
coordination between teams, was not made clear by the BP team. These and many more
communication lapses made it practically impossible to have a smooth flow of activities during
the project execution phase.
Under such circumstance, it would be difficult to take precautionary steps as the risks are
not even known to the whole team. Also, even when a disaster strikes, it would be difficult to
carry out prompt emergency responses as such actions require very we coordinated flow of
information between departments concerned. Better crisis management techniques would have
been effected when the disaster struck should there have been a seamless flow of information
between the specific departments involved.

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
6
Procedures
As part of the preparation process before undertaking any project, the project
manager should prepare clear procedures that would be followed when carrying out the project
(Barclay, Kweku-Muata, & Osei-Bryson, 2010). In fact, it is even recommended that the staff
members who would be involved in the actual implementation of the project should be well
trained on the procedures before embarking on the actual job. This enables a smooth flow of
operations and reduces the risks of messing up the project as a result of unprofessionalism.
According to Chief Counsel, BP did not lay out procedures to be followed during the
project for both rig personnel and onshore team (Bartlit, Sankar, Sean, Graham, & Reilly, 2011).
Most of the times, the relevant times would formulate their own procedures and execute them to
catch up with deadlines. Some of these procedures had not expert input and therefore exposed
the projects to risks such as the fatal blowout it finally faced.
An example is when the rig team had scanty negative pressure procedures that didn’t
provide them with how exactly this would be done. Most of the time, the management would
make late changes to the earlier communicated programs and this caused confusion and
frustrations to the departments involved. When the respective team leaders joined hands and
made it known to the management that such changes had a negative effect to the daily operations
of the engineers and other staff members, BP too no corrective measures to restore order and
normalcy in operations.
If at all BP had the proper management skills I required to carry out such a sophisticated
project, they could have responded to the concerns raised by team leaders more appropriately.
This could have been addressed by temporarily stopping the operations and spending some time

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
7
planning to avoid similar occurrences in the future. This way, the staff members would have felt
appreciated and would have owned up the project and execute their respective roles with
determination and more caution. Consequently, the disaster may have been avoided or at least
contained at its earlier stages.
Finally, it is worth noting that BP did not give much focus to managing their staff
members involved in this project. This had a role to play in the failure of the project. When staff
members are appreciated and constantly trained on the required skills to carry out their duties,
they become more efficient and productive at their work (Gul, Akbar, & Jan, 2012). Some of the
engineers in the rig were young professionals who not only needed constant guidance but also
continuous training. This was never done by BP. Again, the contractor missed out on one of the
most fundamental roes it ought to have played towards making the project a success.
Conclusion
Evidently, it comes out clear that the Macondo blowout was not just an accident, but was
largely attributed to human errors by the main contractor, BP. Just to mention a few, the
company failed in its communication with staff members, lacked procedures to be followed
while executing the project, gave no attention to staff management, ignored major technological
considerations for the sophisticated project and showed no leadership to the rest of the staff
members. These actions are a complete opposite of the recommended ethical practices in
effective project management.
This well-intentioned project that turned out fatal would have been more successful if BP
managed the project better. If more attention would be given to staff, to procedures, to the

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
8
internal and external flow of information, and to staff management, the joint effort and goodwill
from the key players could have hoped to evade the disaster.
This is a lesson to both companies and individuals involved in project management. The
success of any project is dependent on how it is managed and how the crisis is managed
throughout the implementation of the project (Zhong & Pheng, 2009). The success of a project
is, therefore, a function of chronological and accurate steps, and not an event to be achieved in a
day.

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
9
References
Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Project Manager Leadership Role in Improving Project Performance.
Enginnering Management Journal, 22(1), 13-22. doi:10.1080/10429247.2010.11431849:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10429247.2010.11431849
Barclay, C., Kweku-Muata, & Osei-Bryson. (2010, March). Project performance development
framework: An approach for developing performance criteria & measures for information
systems (IS) projects. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(1), 272-292.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.025:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527309004289
Bartlit, F. H., Sankar, S. N., Sean, G., Graham, S. B., & Reilly, W. K. (2011). Macondo, The Oil
Gulf Disaster. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling, Chief Cousel. Retrieved from
http://www.wellintegrity.net/documents/ccr_macondo_disaster.pdf
Chai, J., Liu, J. N., & W.T. Ngai, E. (2013, August). Application of decision-making techniques
in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Science Direct, 40(10), 3872-
3885. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040. Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095741741201281X
Graham, B., Reilly, W. K., Beinecke, F., Boesch, D. F., Garcia, T. D., Murray, C. A., & Ulmer,
F. (2011). Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshow Drilling. Report
to the President, National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling. doi:978-0-16-087371-3

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
10
Gul, A., Akbar, S., & Jan, Z. (2012). Role of Capacity Development, Employee empowerment
and Promotion on Employee Retention in the banking sector of Pakistan. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(9), 284-300. doi:ISSN:
2222-6990: http://hrmars.com/admin/pics/1136.pdf
John, M. F. (2016). Macondo and Bardolino: Two Case Studies of the Human Factors of Kick
Detection Prior to a Blowout. Texas, USA: Offshore Technology Conference.
doi:10.4043/26906-MS: https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/OTC-26906-MS
Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, R. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to planning,
scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.ke/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=xlASDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR19&dq=Kerzner,+H.,+%26+Kerzner,
+R.+(2017).+Project+management:+a+systems+approach+to+planning,+scheduling,
+and+controlling.+John+Wiley+
%26+Sons.&ots=Xb5pXOT2yW&sig=IyS0Dzf2meMom4_tFEdI
Ladyman, J., Lambert, J., & Wiesner, K. (2013, January). 3(1), 33-67. doi:10.1007/s13194-012-
0056-8: https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/publications/what-is-a-complex-
system(18100eae-dd74-4879-9487-506e34f409cf)/export.html
Norazahara, N., Khan, F., Veitch, B., & MacKinnon, S. (2014). Human and organizational
factors assessment of the evacuation operation of BP Deepwater Horizon accident. Safety
Science, 70, 41-49. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.05.002:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753514001076

THE MACONDO BLOWOUT, 2010
11
Oort, E. v., Friedheim, J. E., Pierce, T., & Lee, J. (2011, December). Avoiding Losses in
Depleted and Weak Zones by Constantly Strengthening Wellbores. 26(04).
doi:10.2118/125093-PA: https://www.onepetro.org/journal-paper/SPE-125093-PA
Patel, D. (2018, October 24). 16 Characteristics of Critical Thinkers. Retrieved May 18, 2019,
from Entrepreneurs: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/321660
Sheffield, J., Sankaran, S., & Haslett, T. (2012). Systems thinking: taming complexity in project
management. 20(2), 126-136. doi:10.1108/10748121211235787:
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/10748121211235787?journalCode=oth
Smith, P., Kincannon, H., Lehnert, R., Wang, Q., & Larrañaga, M. D. (2013, May 07). Research
and Process Safety Management: Human error analysis of the Macondo well blowout.
32(2), 217-221. doi:10.1002/prs.11604:
https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/prs.11604
Yanga, L.-R., Huang, C.-F., & Wu, K.-S. (2011, April). The association among project
manager's leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of
Project Management, 29(3), 258-267. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.006:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263786310000566
Zhong, Y., & Pheng, S. (2009). Managing crisis response communication in construction
projects – from a complexity perspective. DISASTER PREVENTION AND
MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, 18(3), 270-282.
doi:10.1108/09653560910965637:
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09653560910965637