Who is responsible for a project going wrong?
Amidst the drama at BP since their oil rig exploded it's interesting that they are blaming one of their contractors for the problem, who in turn are blaming one of theirs.
So who should be responsible for when a project goes wrong? Should BP et al take more responsibility for ensuring their suppliers are doing things correctly?
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
51,377 people viewed the community in October
The buck ultimately stops at the hiring company, in this case BP. Sure it may well have been the fault of a sub-contractor, but it is BP's responsibility to make sure things are done safely and effectively, particularly in such a crucial area. You'd think after they had the explosion at a refinery in America a few years ago that they would really have learnt the lessons, but it would appear not.
It must be a common problem though. I mean we must all have had experiences where suppliers/contractors haven't delivered on what they promised. Every project would probably run like clockwise if they did. Of course many such mishaps aren't as calamitous as the BP situation, but it does suggest that this issue is one the project management profession hasn't really nailed.
hi all,
its seems over promise and under deliver. always supplier/subcontractors false, yet, it is an Oil. i.e. i would think poltics involved.
I wonder about the chain of command at a huge company like BP. I mean managers and employees at the coal face of big companies often have the opportunity to see flaws in operating procedures, but they don't have the power or ability to rectify them without approval from higher up.
With the world becoming an ever more complex place the problems we face will increasingly become ones where real detailed expertise will be what matters rather than more strategic oversights.
If you listen to Obama these days he makes it sound like the whole of Britain is responsible for the BP situation. Must say I expected better from him.
It's interesting that they use the name "British Petroleum" rather than BP when they're talking about it. That name hasn't been used since the 90's and now seems to have been reserected - presumably in an attempt to remind people of where the blame lies.
Having just finished watching the US congress grilling of Tony Hayward, I have been shocked to learn how much the BP CEO delegates in responsibility to the specialists in the field of oil drilling. There appears to be little due diligence for key decisions other than "all people on the rig agree" and I wonder if that is an industry wide commonality. Incredibly Tony was unaware of the size of his own responsibility in the number of rigs under his jurisdiction, even displaying ambiguity in the number drilled in his 3 years of being CEO at BP. These are not big figures folks, 15 or 25. The lesson I take from this so far is that when I become CEO of a company I will be aware of exactly the number of responsibilities I carry and associated risks attached to these assets which have the potential to annihilate the living environment. That is the least I could do for longterm sustainable practice and investment confidence. It appears Tony has been involved with managing investment, not operations. This has to be a classic case study for an MBA curriculum of how not to manage. On the flipside, the US are making an example of BP to send a clear message to the oil industry worldwide they must pay attention and take full responsibility when drilling in environments with an accessibility similar to outer space.
In response to the question who is responsible when a project goes wrong, I will recommend the principles laid out in Prince2. Tony Hayward is managing a programme of projects (rigs) and the programme managers I have worked with knew exactly how many projects were running, exactly how many were missing KPI's and had the finger in those particular PM's pies! I will concede to Tony that investigations are not complete as yet, the blow out preventer has been inappropriately named and given far too much undue respect. I look forward to the next chapter. What an insight into a primary resources global company.
Hi Cathy, the sad thing is that Hayward was hired mainly because he was supposed to be so different to John Browne. He was supposed to come from a more engineering background and be tighter on the operations side of things. The company didn't want any more cock ups like the Texan refinery explosion. Yet here we are in an even bigger cock up.
There's an interesting piece here suggesting that the government are making plans for the collapse of BP.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/britain-prepares-for-the-collapse-of-bp/story-e6frg8zx-1225888689087
I'd be very surprised if that were to happen. From what I've read the clean-up is going better than it was, and whilst it will remain bloody expensive I can't imagine it doing enough to send them under. Maybe enough to send them into the arms of a suitor mind you.
News International is another good example of the people at the top having to take responsibility. With Rebekka Wade gone I wonder how far to the top the heads will roll?
As a manager I think that (within reason) it it my duty to take responsibility for the actions of my team. With regard to suppliers/contractors it's important to have the correct legal paperwork in place to understand where responsibility lies for any mishaps.
It's always a team thing. If all members of the project team took personal responsibility things would be less likely to go wrong. Looking for an individual's head to sever simply fosters a blame culture within an organisation. And a process that anticipates likely banana skins is always a good plan.
It's all part of the charade isn't it? I mean senior people are paid big bucks, therefore as part of that bargain there's the expectation that they're supermen that know everything and are responsible for everything. It's a self fulfilling hubris. We need to start appreciating that senior managers have very real limitations.