THE DEEP WATER HORIZON OIL SPILL RESPONSE REPORT Case Solution
Scope Management/ Scope Creep
The scope of the Deepwater Horizon rig project was not properly defined. The lack of unique and a clear scope had also contributed to the likelihood of the problems which had been mainly faced during the execution of the drilling of the well. The initial project planning was also inadequate and poor. A proper work breakdown structure had not been created by the three players of the project (Mankabady, 2010).There were many uncontrolled changed within the project which resulted in scope creep (Yonggang, 2011). There was inadequate crisis management. BP had mobilized around 4 aircrafts and 32 vessels after two days of the explosion and after three more days, the number of the aircrafts had changed by one and the number of the vessels remained unchanged whereas, they needed 205 times the current number of vessels and 32 times of the initial aircrafts deployed by them (Yonggang, 2011). The management of the scope was poor as a result of understated and conservative actions by the management.
The risk management approach was poor and the risk management plan was absent in the Deepwater Horizon project. BP had failed to analyze the risk possibilities and develop adequate risk mitigation strategies for the Macondo project. The BP water oil spill was caused as a result of a series of risk management failures. No evidence had been found by the investigative panel that a formal risk assessment of the operational decisions had been performed by BP(Report to the President, 2011). BP had emphasized more on time saving and cost saving decisions without taking into account the mitigations and contingencies which contributed to this disaster (Stevens, 2008). Moreover, this lack of mitigation and risk management planning could be attributed to the management culture of BP, the lack of crisis management plans in place in such an industry where the failures could be monumental and also the presence of the bias within the oil industry itself which had ignored the possibility of such a massive disaster which was as monumental as the BP oil spill (Tunnell, 2011).
The efforts and the amount of the resources needed to contain and also control the blowout of the BP oil project were unprecedented. From the day when the well blew out, April 20, 2010 to September 19, 2010, when the BP project was declared as dead by the government, enormous resources had been deployed by BP in developing new technologies which captured a significant amount of the oil at the wellhead (Amina, 2010). A well organized engineering team had also been developed by the government in providing the oversight of BP along with the support of Minerals Management service (MMS), but still the resource management was poor due to which BP underestimated the scale of this massive disaster and overestimated their ability to control it (Stevens, 2008). The response capacity issue discussed previously proves this and it took merely 80 days for BP to develop a full response capacity.
Human Resource Management
The management of the human resources was poor due to the poor communications plan among the employees of Halliburton, Transocean and BP regarding the extent of the risks associated with all the decisions that were being made. The teamwork spirit was absent because the decision making process was compartmentalized and those individuals who were frequently working on the rig made all the critical decisions without considering the safety of the well. There were a number of the occasions when the crew members of the Deepwater were unsure about which company was in charge of the different points of the BP project (Naomi, 2010).As a result, a number of decisions had been just made by the officials, as they focused just on money and time and ignored the associated risks (Naomi, 2010). The management of the employees was poor due to fragmentation of responsibilities among the three organizations which had different goals. This resulted in unclear goals for the project, interdependencies and team roles, poor communication and lack of leadership……………….
This is just a sample partial work. Please place the order on the website to get your own originally done case solution