The purpose of the study is to develop a project health check model to evaluate the status of projects within the coal mining industry. The model will be based on the Buttrick (2000) project health check model as described in his book “The Interactive Project Workout”. The model assesses the current “health” or status of a project. It looks at the full project environment and uses a set of question results in an assessment of the overall risk associated with the project. The model evaluates seven key project success factors which include: 1. Project Plan 5. Expertise 2. Resources 6. Clear Specification 3. Ownership 7. Top Level Support 4. Justifiable Case The model fulfils two roles: • As a checklist, and • As a tool to indicate where a project manager’s efforts should be directed. This study will give an overview of the coal mining industry and the way projects are being evaluated and prioritised. The Buttrick (2000) project health check model will be assessed and adapted to evaluate projects within the coal mining industry. The “new / adapted” model will be applied to the Douglas / Middelburg Optimisation (DMO) to evaluate the health status of the project which is currently at the end of definition (feasibility) stage within BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa. The results obtained from the new health check model showed that the DMO project was in a healthy state with a project health check score of 47.33. It could 4 thus be concluded that the DMO project is ready to move in to the execution phase of the BHP Billiton capital investment process. The results obtained from the project team member participants were split into management perception and team members’ perception. The overall health of the DMO project between the two parties gave similar results with the team members score of 43.76 being slightly lower than the management health score of 45.42. The only major difference was observed on the “Communication” project evaluation criteria where the management perspective on the communication effectiveness was higher than that of the project team members.

The purpose of the study is to develop a project health check model to evaluate the status of projects within the coal mining industry. The model will be based on the Buttrick (2000) project health check model as described in his book “The Interactive Project Workout”. The model assesses the current “health” or status of a project. It looks at the full project environment and uses a set of question results in an assessment of the overall risk associated with the project. The model evaluates seven key project success factors which include: 1. Project Plan 5. Expertise 2. Resources 6. Clear Specification 3. Ownership 7. Top Level Support 4. Justifiable Case The model fulfils two roles: • As a checklist, and • As a tool to indicate where a project manager’s efforts should be directed. This study will give an overview of the coal mining industry and the way projects are being evaluated and prioritised. The Buttrick (2000) project health check model will be assessed and adapted to evaluate projects within the coal mining industry. The “new / adapted” model will be applied to the Douglas / Middelburg Optimisation (DMO) to evaluate the health status of the project which is currently at the end of definition (feasibility) stage within BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa. The results obtained from the new health check model showed that the DMO project was in a healthy state with a project health check score of 47.33. It could 4 thus be concluded that the DMO project is ready to move in to the execution phase of the BHP Billiton capital investment process. The results obtained from the project team member participants were split into management perception and team members’ perception. The overall health of the DMO project between the two parties gave similar results with the team members score of 43.76 being slightly lower than the management health score of 45.42. The only major difference was observed on the “Communication” project evaluation criteria where the management perspective on the communication effectiveness was higher than that of the project team members.