Two news items—British Petroleum’s (BP) success in stopping the flow of oil in the Gulf and the rescue of 33 miners in Chile—recently demonstrated the power of constraints on projects. These projects had certain characteristics in common, namely:
- Time was of the essence
- The penalties of failure or delay were significant
- The power of pre-existing scenario planning was undeniable.
Let’s examine these three characteristics in detail.
1. Time Is of the Essence
It was critical for the projects to be completed within a certain time. For BP, this meant stopping the flow of oil as soon as possible. For the Chilean mine, that meant bringing the men above ground as quickly as possible.
2. Penalties of Failure
The consequences of failure were greater than increased costs or even any government fines. For BP, this meant negative publicity (some may argue that any opportunity for saves in that regard had long passed the moment the spill occurred) and increased payouts and increased payouts to those affected by the spill. For the Chilean mine, the penalty was the loss of 1 to 33 lives, the value of which cannot be determined in any currency.
3. Pre-Existing Scenario Planning
Both BP and the mine were accused of shoddy safety records and even worse scenario planning. Scenario planning before these disasters could have been beneficial. The benefits of planning for the inevitable (given the nature of the industries) scenarios would have positively impacted the scope of the projects.
Interestingly, the above characteristics can be mapped to the classic triple constraints model.
Although both news stories have faded from the spotlight (i.e., the scope has been fulfilled and time constraint is no longer a factor), the cost constraint lives on in the form of lawsuits and penalty payouts. Hopefully, there have been enough lessons learned that can be leveraged to assist in the scope definition and time save of future similar projects.
