Group Project 2 due March 9, 2012

This assignment was authored by Greg Kinney

The "emergency project."

From the PMI website (emphasis mine): "A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to achieve a particular aim. Every project has a definite beginning and a definite end. While projects are similar to operations in that both are performed by people, both are generally constrained by limited resources, and both are planned, executed and controlled, projects differ from operations in that operations are ongoing and repetitive while projects are temporary and unique."

Consider that definition with respect to the University Fire Department response to a house fire. That response, to that particular house, has a definite beginning and end and is temporary and unique. However, responding to such fires and maintaining the capability to respond are normal fire department operations. Each fire is an event, but not a project. This is because the events are ongoing and repetitive. The fire department expects to put out fires. While the exact timing of the fires is unknown, the overall frequency is reliably predicted by statistical methods, based on known local and published industry parameters such as mean and standard deviation.

Now consider Alyeska Pipeline's response to a November 2002 earthquake on the Denali Fault. This was by far the largest seismic event to impact the pipeline since its startup in 1977. The event did not cause any oil to spill, but it did cause damage to supports, realignment of the pipeline, and concern about the potential effect on pipeline integrity.

Among other things, I am also a student doing continuing education in engineering and other topics. I wrote a paper last year on this topic for a geotechnical earthquake engineering class. The paper discusses many aspects of the quake along with the response, and can be found by clicking here. In addition, there are articles available on the web (search on Denali Fault earthquake with other words like pipeline).

For this Project 2, I want you to do two things. First, using the "response of operator" discussion in the paper, describe how you believe Alyeska could apply project management techniques for responding to this event.

The paper mentions formation of an Incident Command System (ICS) organization. Do some research on the web as to how that works. Consider what steps would be performed to get a response up and running. How do you begin to gather facts and to figure out what to do? How are staff assigned, i.e., pulled from their ongoing duties? How is the money budgeted? How is time charged? Is a WBS assigned? If outside contractors are used, who hires them? Who manages the interface with these contractors? The information you pull from the Internet might not have complete information. If you lack this information, make reasonable assumptions, or speculate on it. What we are trying to determine is during the planning for the generalized disaster operations, were there project management plans as well. Put another way, presumably thought was given to the performance of the operation, was thought given to the cost and schedule of the operation?

Now it's time for your group to go beyond that. What we are trying to determine is during the planning for the generalized disaster operations, what role would project planning and management play? To think about this, first consider at what point can we consider the emergency phase of response to end, and the project phase to begin?

Hint: our initial objectives aside from safety concerns are assessment of the situation. If there were an oil spill, our initial objective would be source control - controlling and shutting off any more oil from spilling - and containment - preventing any further spreading of oil on land or water. Once you've done that, you could pursue the project phase, which would be repair of any damage and remediation of any oil spillage. (To reiterate, the November 2002 event did not cause any spill, so there was no need to provide spill remediation; however, there was a need to repair some damage, to assess the performance of the pipeline relative to initial design criteria, and to assess any impact on pipeline integrity.)

How do you, as a group, believe you could best structure a project of that type? For example: If the operations plan says, "we will hire local trucking contractors to haul off oil soaked soil," would you create project management plans that say something like, "The on-scene project manager will have the on-scene project engineer estimate quantities, and the homebase contracts manager will authorize payment and reserve budget.....the estimate of total time will be relayed to the project manager for input to the home office public affairs staff."

I would also like you to discuss and comment on whether it would be possible or desirable to pre-plan disaster responses as work packages, designed around modules of personnel and equipment dispatched in accordance with a deployment plan to specific disasters. Is such planning realistic given the number of potential events out there? Should we focus in on the most likely disasters? What would be required in order to make such planning effective in emergency? What kind of information would be needed in real time? Could you apply project management techniques proactively for response to disaster scenarios that may occur in geographically disparate places and involving diverse circumstances (i.e., different damage patterns and causal factors)?

Finally (for the first part), review the Directed Reading entry in the text, entitled "Planning for Crises in Project Management" (beginning on p. 277) and the Project Management in Practice piece on page 255. Of the four tools that are described in the Directed Reading article for crises, how might such tools be useful in disaster response planning for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System?

Deliver a Word Document that answers the questions given above. I have set up a forum in your group's Discussion Board to facilitate this conversation and the deliverable.