<p>Managing offshore development projects in Norway is no doubt a challenging task because such projects often involve large capital investments with risks under dynamic and complex environments. Project managers play a critical role for project success. This study concentrates on project core team level of management.</p><p>The study focuses on one major task of project managers: top-down identification, communication and monitoring of management focuses in order to lead an organization towards the same goals/success. There are three steps: demonstrate that a need for a new tool for this purpose exists; further develop a generalized critical success factor (CSF) process model to meet such a need; test the model in real-time Statoil offshore development projects through a multiple-case study design. Four research questions (see Figure 3-1 The four research questions in this study) are formulated accordingly and answered.</p><p>Through the case studies, it is clear that goal definition and breakdown is management lore also practiced well in offshore development projects. Definition of task, responsibility and authority is also attended to. Good project managers all have a picture of what is critical for their projects at each time, yet often implicitly. Mangers agree that it is manager’s responsibility to let the project organization know what is the most important and dangerous for the project at any time. However, besides project governing documents, which is event independent, risk register and regular meetings, much of such communication happens informally. We can also demonstrate that risk register covers just part of management focuses. Different CT members have different understanding of project management focuses and priorities among them. Subjective evaluation is extensively used to evaluate the status in management focuses, sometimes according to implicit or even different criteria. It is therefore clear that a structured tool is needed to ensure good identification, communication and monitoring of top-down management focuses.</p><p>A management tool, called a generalized Critical Success Factor (CSF) process model, is therefore further developed for this purpose. The model is based on semi-structured interviews with all project core team members except Administration (secretary function), which is considered having a function with too little management responsibility.</p><p>The model has two parts in data collection. The first part aims at retrieving interviewees’ perception of their jobs, their understanding of project success criteria, the role of project core team and their management information sources. This part helps one understand the team dynamics and thoughts behind individual actions. The other part is a comprehensive and systematic list made of eleven (11) categories for identification of critical activities for reaching project success. These activities are then grouped into related topics. Consistency and criticality checks are carried out within and among the groups. Each group is then given a title in terms of activity and becomes a critical success factor (CSF). The result is presented to CT manager or CT for comments and necessary revisions are made.</p><p>The two cases in the multiple-case design show the generality of the model by analytic generation rather than statistical enumeration. The CSFs found are explicit and project specific. The CSF results are purely based on managers’ statement in the interviews with no interpretation by the author. It is clear that CT members contribute to better quality of CSF identification comparing to the situation where only CT manager is involved. This supports the introduction of team-CSF approach in the model developed. This model contributes to better communication (vertically between the CT manager and her team and horizontally among the CT members) through making management focuses explicit, documenting them and reaching consensus.</p><p>However, the study shows that managers experience difficulty in identifying a set of measures representing the identified CSFs. The measures suggested, following the principle suggested by Dobbins [Dobbins, 2000], are not representative or concise enough. Other method than pure interviews may have to be tried out in this aspect in future studies in order to reach the full potential and acceptance of this model by practitioners, for example one can develop a questionnaire based on focused literature review on the identified CSFs, the use of which can facilitate interviewees in identifying good measures for their project.</p><p>This tool is logic with low application threshold. Managers have full control of the results. It can help discover potential conflicts or problems and allow for modifications both in and outside project organization. It offers a channel between project and outsiders, academic and practitioner alike. It is also a step towards better-documented management process.</p>

Managing offshore development projects in Norway is no doubt a challenging task because such projects often involve large capital investments with risks under dynamic and complex environments. Project managers play a critical role for project success. This study concentrates on project core team level of management. The study focuses on one major task of project managers: top-down identification, communication and monitoring of management focuses in order to lead an organization towards the same goals/success. There are three steps: demonstrate that a need for a new tool for this purpose exists; further develop a generalized critical success factor (CSF) process model to meet such a need; test the model in real-time Statoil offshore development projects through a multiple-case study design. Four research questions (see Figure 3-1 The four research questions in this study) are formulated accordingly and answered. Through the case studies, it is clear that goal definition and breakdown is management lore also practiced well in offshore development projects. Definition of task, responsibility and authority is also attended to. Good project managers all have a picture of what is critical for their projects at each time, yet often implicitly. Mangers agree that it is manager’s responsibility to let the project organization know what is the most important and dangerous for the project at any time. However, besides project governing documents, which is event independent, risk register and regular meetings, much of such communication happens informally. We can also demonstrate that risk register covers just part of management focuses. Different CT members have different understanding of project management focuses and priorities among them. Subjective evaluation is extensively used to evaluate the status in management focuses, sometimes according to implicit or even different criteria. It is therefore clear that a structured tool is needed to ensure good identification, communication and monitoring of top-down management focuses. A management tool, called a generalized Critical Success Factor (CSF) process model, is therefore further developed for this purpose. The model is based on semi-structured interviews with all project core team members except Administration (secretary function), which is considered having a function with too little management responsibility. The model has two parts in data collection. The first part aims at retrieving interviewees’ perception of their jobs, their understanding of project success criteria, the role of project core team and their management information sources. This part helps one understand the team dynamics and thoughts behind individual actions. The other part is a comprehensive and systematic list made of eleven (11) categories for identification of critical activities for reaching project success. These activities are then grouped into related topics. Consistency and criticality checks are carried out within and among the groups. Each group is then given a title in terms of activity and becomes a critical success factor (CSF). The result is presented to CT manager or CT for comments and necessary revisions are made. The two cases in the multiple-case design show the generality of the model by analytic generation rather than statistical enumeration. The CSFs found are explicit and project specific. The CSF results are purely based on managers’ statement in the interviews with no interpretation by the author. It is clear that CT members contribute to better quality of CSF identification comparing to the situation where only CT manager is involved. This supports the introduction of team-CSF approach in the model developed. This model contributes to better communication (vertically between the CT manager and her team and horizontally among the CT members) through making management focuses explicit, documenting them and reaching consensus. However, the study shows that managers experience difficulty in identifying a set of measures representing the identified CSFs. The measures suggested, following the principle suggested by Dobbins [Dobbins, 2000], are not representative or concise enough. Other method than pure interviews may have to be tried out in this aspect in future studies in order to reach the full potential and acceptance of this model by practitioners, for example one can develop a questionnaire based on focused literature review on the identified CSFs, the use of which can facilitate interviewees in identifying good measures for their project. This tool is logic with low application threshold. Managers have full control of the results. It can help discover potential conflicts or problems and allow for modifications both in and outside project organization. It offers a channel between project and outsiders, academic and practitioner alike. It is also a step towards better-documented management process.

No description available.

<p>More than forty years has passed since the start of the North Sea oil and gas developments. On the managerial side of the projects there have been large cost overruns, project planning and control measures developed to avoid these, initiatives to improve the industry’s competitiveness in the North Sea, as well as measures to improve the supply chains contribution in the projects. We have seen a focus first and foremost on the CAPEX side of the projects, which still is the public measure of a ‘project’s’ success as seen in medias coverage. However, the operation side of the project has been given extended focus, especially through life-cycle cost measures, and life cycle value measures trying to balance out the CAPEX, OPEX and income sides of the project to obtain the most commercial value enhancement from each project. At the same time there has been an increasing focus on the core business among the project demand and supply chain actors in this industry as in most other industries.</p><p>Our belief is that this necessitates an enhanced focus on the project demand and supply chains of the industry, both for the projects development and operations phases. A question is whether the project demand and supply chain developments are approached appropriately according to the characteristics of the industry’s project context?</p>

No description available.

More than forty years has passed since the start of the North Sea oil and gas developments. On the managerial side of the projects there have been large cost overruns, project planning and control measures developed to avoid these, initiatives to improve the industry’s competitiveness in the North Sea, as well as measures to improve the supply chains contribution in the projects. We have seen a focus first and foremost on the CAPEX side of the projects, which still is the public measure of a ‘project’s’ success as seen in medias coverage. However, the operation side of the project has been given extended focus, especially through life-cycle cost measures, and life cycle value measures trying to balance out the CAPEX, OPEX and income sides of the project to obtain the most commercial value enhancement from each project. At the same time there has been an increasing focus on the core business among the project demand and supply chain actors in this industry as in most other industries. Our belief is that this necessitates an enhanced focus on the project demand and supply chains of the industry, both for the projects development and operations phases. A question is whether the project demand and supply chain developments are approached appropriately according to the characteristics of the industry’s project context?

Med fremveksten av oljeutvinning til havs ble det behov for nye metoder for å lete etter olje, i tillegg til å hente den opp. Mobile plattformer ble til i tiden rundt 1950 som et resultat av oljeindustriens vekst, og klasseselskapene gikk aktivt inn for å involvere seg i klassifisering av disse plattformene. Etter kort tid kom problemstillingen om hva en mobil plattform var – et skip eller noe annet? Det norske Veritas involverte seg i den begynnende olje- og gassutvinningen i Nordsjøen ganske tidlig. For selskapet var offshoreindustri et skritt vekk fra det tradisjonelle klassearbeidet. Likevel åpnet industrien flere dører for klasseselskapet, samtidig som det bød på nye utfordringer. Mobile plattformer var noe nytt, men hadde samtidig en forankring i det maritime miljøet. Det norske Veritas prøvde slik å utnytte sin egen lange erfaring fra skip, ved å overføre den til et eget regelverk og en egen klasse for mobile plattformer. Selskapet kjempet slik for å få en kontrollordning på mobile plattformer basert på samme ordning som for skip. Sjøfartsdirektoratet hadde et langt og nært samarbeid med Det norske Veritas. Med opprettelsen av Oljedirektoratet ble klasseselskapet en årsak til uenighet innad i direktoratene, og da spesielt omkring arbeidet med mobile plattformer - en uenighet som ville følge alle aktørene gjennom hele perioden. Spørsmålet om hva en mobil plattform skulle defineres som var også medvirkende. Oppgaven avslutter med rammeavtalen mellom Det norske Veritas og Oljedirektoratet i 1977.