"If Moses had used CPDEP the Israelites would still be in Egypt..." MY favorite of the year so far :) THANKS mate
26 replies (most recent on top)
"If Moses had used CPDEP the Israelites would still be in Egypt..." Try favorite of the year so far :) THANKS mate
Solid Gold, 7gal. A humorous but rather accurate explanation of BeanDip (I meant CPDEP).
CPDEP is a basic decision tree. I just ate a huge burrito, I need to take a crap. I choose 1500 Louisiana, 5th floor. I look for an alternative, I choose the 40th floor because big wigs are in town. I execute and have a look back into the bowl. I discuss it with co-workers and we decide to plan three dumps in a row the next day, and do not flush next time.
Just building on some points already made...CPDEP is a SYSTEM but for it to really work the other organizational characteristics ALSO need to be in place (stealing from McKinsey 7 S model)
Strategy - Purpose of the business and the way the organization seeks to enhance its competitive advantage.
Structure - Division of activities; integration and coordination mechanisms.
Systems - Formal procedures for measurement, reward and resource allocation.
Shared Values
Skills - The organization's core competencies and distinctive capabilities.
Staff - Organization's human resources, demographic, educational and attitudinal characteristics.
Style - Typical behavior patterns of key groups, such as managers, and other professionals.
I am a retired Chevroid with over 40 years in one of the their technology companies. I saw the birth of CPDEP with some positive results, but then saw some issues ... as others have pointed out that CVX became more and more work process/system oriented without always paying attention to all org aspects....leading to some not so stellar major capital project results.
I think the difficulties with CPDEP are only a symptom of other more fundamental problems.
I was in a particular technical specialty that could have yielded some pretty decent cost savings when looking at the total cost of developing an IT project. The management approach to implementing these practices was to add more checkpoints and documents to CPDEP, not hiring and training people who had the skills to actually perform the activities required. In the end there were just more documents and checkpoints performed by people who were doing their best but really had no idea how to carry out the activities in a way that added value.
Other problems I saw over and over
-
management override: project team does its due diligence, makes recommendations, certain key members of DRB or management override those decisions
-
DRB is not engaged with project team at a meaningful level, just makes sure the boxes are all checked and approves
-
Cost assessments and lookbacks never seem to take a genuine look at total cost of ownership and hidden costs like loss of productivity in the field
The general response to failed projects is to say that the process must have been lacking and add more process. I never saw a learning lookback that blamed an a person . . . this person was underqualified or did not do the job or pulled management rank and overrode the collective work of a team of one hundred people who are experts in their field.
Well explained, 6plk.
CPDEP is a documented process of how we generally live life:
-
I need a pillow.
-
What kinds of pillow are available.
-
Which pillow suits me best.
-
Buy pillow.
-
Was tha a good pillow?
Substitute pillow with cars, cupcakes, shirts, pets, wine or anything. Our own personal decision making generally follows this process. Map that process into a corporation, add processes within processes and you end up with a behemoth that fails to deliver quality decisions. Firstly it looks for a 100% solution when that might not be necessary. Sometimes a generic, multi-application solution at 90% efficiency is better than bespoke, high design cost individual solutions (but keeps PRC in business with themselves). Secondly, the stage gates are so onerous because management, who should evaluate risk, are just looking to cover their asses and not get implicated in project failures. "Hey, we followed CPDEP".. as a result I see slow project execution, costing more time and money on rework and change orders (contractors dream). Gorgon is a fine example, Agbami, Frade join in. If expediency, taking risks (financial) and occasional failure were recognized positively then maybe these projects would move faster and bring returns earlier. As I say, CPDEP is a logical process but being used too much as a career safety net for wimpy or incompetent management. 'nuff said.
Once service company costs start to go up again, the Permian will be another clunker of an asset.
Permian reserves are teeny, tiny compared to the full range of global opportunities. Truth be told, we are having trouble even executing in the Permian. Its a stop-gap measure and wholly unsustainable in the absence of major structural changes in the way we do business. And the jury was out at Gorgon. Do the math. The facility design was 40 year op window. No way we turn a profit in that time frame. A complete bust in terms of ROI.
CPDEP is a good concept and most IOCs have similar PM processes. CVX simply cannot execute while other companies are far better at executing their project management process. A combination of inept people and bad management. Total, ExxonMobil and Statoil are the best project managers. CVX needs to stick to Permian, it cannot compete on complex projects on a consistent basis. Jury still out on Wheatstone, Tehngiz and Gorgon 3 and Gorgon Plateau projects. Other companies do not want CVX as operator anymore. We are relegated to the same status as BP after Macondo
-2mox Well said (and Amen)!
If Moses had used CPDEP the Israelites would still be in Egypt...
If all you can do is CPDEP, you are no good to anyone outside Chevron. It adds no value to a real company interested in performance.
@LY0bpNa-fti. What part of the PRC organization do you work in? I agree with @LY0bpNa-1tvw!
I'm old retired fart now, but went through the entire CPDEP evolution over the last several decades.
When you break it down, it just an industrial version of something we do every day in our personal lives. ID an opportunity (P1) / Develop alternatives (P2) / narrow and detail the best option (P3) / Execute (P4) / Step back and evaluate whether it was a success or what went wrong if it failed (P5).
Obviously, the Chevron version gets lost in all the sub-processes that seldom find a practical way to be used for benefit.
Consequently, I agree with many of the posters here that the problem MUST be with the leaders not knowing what is important for project success or using the process to protect their own interests. PRC management needs to be sacked and replaced with good old "getter done" expertise who will then put individual PMs and staff in place to follow suit. If CPDEP principles apply, great...if not, GETTER DONE!
1qhz. Dead on.
I worked megaprojects before I joined Chevron that used gAndated processes that went very well. Then several with Chevron that were appalling. Now back in the real world with another major on a small project.(500 mm).
Chevron was a great place to work, but very poor at executing projects with contractors.
Solid Gold @1qhz. You hit the nail square on the head. Thanks.
CPDEP has a good concept as its basis, but is overly complicated in the actual implementation steps, like too many things in Chevron. But the real problem is the people that run the projects. There are way too many people in decision making positions on these projects that don't have any understanding of what they are making decisions over. Instead of putting people in leadership roles over areas they have experience, people are given development assignments over people who actual understand what they are doing.
Frankly people with the right experience and knowledge can do a decent job of running a project under any PM system. But that is not how Chevron staffs its projects.
Can someone name one project that was successful based mostly on the rigorous adherence to this process? One project ever???? Crickets are chirping....CPDEP is a terrible process that doesn't work. It has proven itself time and time again. The excuse that folks just aren't following the process is a joke.
It is however a titanium reinforced turd deflector that PM's use to shield themselves from the blame for ignorant decisions.
I am still waiting on one example of successful application. Whoever names a success will cite a project that couldn't fail....i.e. the reserves and ease of development were too big even for CPDEP to F up.
Interesting. So what went wrong at Gorgon and Bigfoot in terms of CPDEP? Maybe fixing CPDEP instead of fixing The Chevron Way would have a greater business impact?
CPDEP can be a strength if used properly. It is a well-designed quality assurance and control system for planning and executing large capital projects only. Its implementation on less than mega projects is a waste of time. If Chevron's project managers take CPDEP seriously and use it in a disciplined manner and everyone else on the project sticks to their assigned deliverables, then CPDEP will be a definite strength for the company. Unfortunately, most Chevron employees and project management staff don't understand or appreciate CPDEP well enough to make it work very well. Most projects where it's used experience a few bottlenecks, so small, but critical procedural steps are by-passed to keep pace with non-project executives who demand production at the expense of quality. It's often seen that we move all too slow in Phase 1 through 2, then jump straight to Phase 4 or 5.
A big resounding YES. CVX and most other large entities s--- at PM. We should turnkey price all projects. Stay away from it until keys are handed over.
Weakness and yes. Global performance on large projects speaks for itself. This is not a local issue contained to just one or two business units; there is a much higher level fundamental flaw at work.
Yes and yes
Yes.