megaprojects white paper

Keogh Consulting MegaProjects Whitepaper
August 2014
0
Mega Projects White Paper
Research and discovery of the critical
factors that determine mega project
success
By
Brenda Turnbull & Allan Keogh

1
Keogh Consulting Mega Projects White Paper
August 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6
OUR RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................ 7
Step 1: Auditing the Current Literature ........................................................................ 7
Step 2: Distilling Keogh’s Current Insights ................................................................... 8
Step 3: Distilling This Input to Identify Key Functions to Manage .................................. 8
Step 4: Developing the Questionnaire .......................................................................... 9
Step 5: Conducting the Questionnaire Interviews ......................................................... 9
Step 6: Analysing the Data ........................................................................................ 10
KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 10
ORGANISATION OF FINDINGS ................................................................................... 10
Seven Key Functional Areas: .....................................................................................11
Ten Recurring Critical Themes: ..................................................................................11
Four Foundational Principles ......................................................................................11
KEOGH CONSULTING’S APPROACHES............................................................................ 12
The Findings ............................................................................................................. 12
Seven Key Functional Areas ....................................................................................... 12
Ten Recurring Critical Themes: .................................................................................. 15
1. Clarity and agreement of project focus – vision, project definition, risks, deliverables ....16
2. Agreed project philosophies and approaches decided upon at outset (including values) .16
3. Key internal stakeholders are aligned and understand their role/part ..........................17
4. Every project is unique – project teams must be constituted and empowered to get on
with the job of addressing challenges in uniquely/locally effective ways......................17
5. Systems are important but it is people who make them work....................................18
6. Alignment & integration across project interfaces....................................................18
7. Project leadership is passionately committed and ‘walks the talk’...............................18
8. Expect chaos, disruption, problems, conflicts of interest, creative tensions – It’s how
these are addressed that matters........................................................................19
9. Embed and sustain a culture of accountability ........................................................19
10. The right people on board, with the right skills, at the right time...............................19

2
August 2014
Foundational Principles ............................................................................................. 20
1. Coherence, Alignment and Integration .....................................................................20
2. Embracing & Working with the Dynamic, Evolutionary Nature of Mega Projects ...............22
3. Perpetual Striving for Balance ................................................................................23
4. Fit-for-purpose Leadership .....................................................................................24
KEOGH CONSULTING’S INSIGHTS & CONTRIBUTIONS:.................................................. 26
Lens 1 – Structure ..................................................................................................... 27
Lens 2 – People ......................................................................................................... 31
Lens 3 – Culture ........................................................................................................ 34
Lens 4 – Power ......................................................................................................... 37
CONCLUSION: .............................................................................................................. 39
REFERENCE LIST.......................................................................................................... 40
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................................... 41
APPENDICES................................................................................................................ 42
Appendix A – Data Trends Analysis ............................................................................ 42

3
August 2014
MEGA PROJECTS WHITE PAPER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By Brenda Turnbull & Allan Keogh
Mega projects of the scope, size and complexity that we see today are a relatively recent
phenomenon. The first decade of this century has seen more of these projects executed than
during any earlier comparable period. Increasingly, they are organisational tours de force,
with an experimental, ground-breaking bent.
They exhibit not only technical but social
complexity, and consequently their failure rates
(in terms of missed targets) are high – 65 per
cent is reported by some. Their cost over-runs
can be crippling, their schedules often slip so
that early year operability is frequently very
poor, significantly affecting profitability. Some
continue to have issues with functionality well
into their early years of operation. The
challenge for these human systems to
effectively self-organise in order to deliver their
technological feats and economic returns is
enormous.
At Keogh Consulting, our aspiration in
conducting this research has been to shine
further light on the factors most critical to
delivering mega project success. Throughout
our 30 years of involvement it has too often
seemed that the prospect of success has been
akin to snatching victory from the jaws of
defeat.
We are interested in contributing to the collective
wisdom, knowledge and approaches so that
success, not failure, can be anticipated more
generally as the likelier outcome. Our question,
therefore, is ‘what needs to be better understood
and enacted’ for this to be the case?
This paper explores that issue. We conducted a
review of the literature to identify currently cited
success factors, and in conjunction with insights
derived from our own experience, developed a
quantitative and qualitative-based questionnaire.
This provided the basis for our in-depth interviews with a representative cross-section of
executive managers with extensive mega and major project experience (26 in total).
The prospect of
success has too
often been akin
to snatching
victory from the
jaws of defeat
The challenge for
these human
systems to
effectively self-
organise in order
to deliver their
technological feats
and economic
returns is
enormous.

4
August 2014
What we discovered may surprise you. It certainly did us. Not so much in the focus, but in
the consistency and conformity of the focus.
Our participants concurred that the difference
between success or failure with Mega Projects,
when reduced to its essence, lies in the
management of the non-obvious, the less seen –
what we have termed ‘the relationships’ between
the many aspects.
This includes not only
between the project ‘parts’,
or the teams, or the people
– but between project
drivers, phenomena, data
sets, intentions, values and
the emergent
political/social/economic
dynamics.
This is because the
trajectory of these
projects typically
resembles that of a
spiral, not a train track.
Therefore they manifest
the characteristics of
dynamic, iterative and
chaotic systems, and
much of what needs to
be managed resides in
the arena of shadows –
never being able to be
definitively measured or
calculated.
This therefore suggests
there is as much artistry
as science involved in
their management. At
the very least, it
requires a different set
of understandings and
approaches (to the
conventional) in their
internal organisation,
and this, we believe, has
not previously been well
understood.
In this paper, we lay out
an integrated framework
for addressing this new
reality – for facilitating a
holistic responsiveness
to and management of
the ‘invisible’ and ‘less
seen’ (as well as the
obvious and seen).
A significant component
of this is through the
building of alignment and
integration across the
many facets. This is to a
degree not usually
experienced in other
arenas of human
enterprise.
However, unless this is
planned for and
executed, it is unlikely to
happen.
As Peter F Drucker often
commented, the only
things that evolve by
themselves in
organisations are
disorder, friction and
mal-performance. This
is no more apparent than
with mega projects.
There are other
components as well,
which we identify and
provide input on. Our
intention in laying out
this framework of
organisational and
management processes
and leadership actions is
to assist mega projects
in maintaining their
momentum throughout
all their phases of
development - sailing
through the smooth
patches, but as
importantly, maintaining
optimal progress during
the rough patches.
We hope the insights we offer will make a difference to how these projects are brought to life.

August 2014
5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We feel privileged to have been able to conduct this research and grateful to all those, many
of them former clients and colleagues, who very generously gave of their time and hard-
earned insights to enable us to produce this paper.
We trust you will find it of value in whatever role you may play, past, present and future, on
mega projects.

August 2014
6
INTRODUCTION
It is widely reported in the
current literature and published
writings on mega projects
(typically identified as projects
worth in excess of $1 billion)
that they have a failure rate of
65 per cent, while major
projects (typically identified as
up to $1 billion) have the
considerably lower rate of 35
per cent.
This is a significant difference
and poses the question: ‘Why is
the rate so high for mega
projects?’
Failure is generally defined
within the literature as:
1. Running over time by 5 per
cent or more, AND/OR
2. Going over budget by 25
per cent or more, AND/OR
3. Having significant
operational problems into
the second year of
operation, or later
Given the scope, scale and
sheer complexity of factors that
define mega projects, perhaps
we should not be surprised that
any or all of these eventualities
might come to pass. In fact,
we might pause to regard with
some measure of awe, the
coming to life at all of these
great beasts, given their
requirements for often
unprecedented levels of
coordinated planning,
innovation, relationship
management and construction.
But nonetheless, this is a question that has vexed
Keogh Consulting for some years, given our long
history of involvement on these projects. So we
set about to find some answers to build on the
body of knowledge already established by our
colleagues.
What we found may surprise you. No, it’s not the
level of technological challenge these projects
invariably present. Nor is it the sheer complexity
(political, cultural, and environmental) of their
contexts, although these are without doubt very
challenging aspects and require skillful
management. So is it a deficiency in realistic,
well-founded processes for scoping projects, or the
failure to adroitly manage the market’s
expectations or those of other key stakeholders?
Well, yes, sometimes, but that is not what we
found to be most fundamental.
We found that the one enduring factor that
underpins all of these and the many other
challenges confronting mega projects is the quality
of relationships: relationships between people – of
all levels, constituencies, locations,
accountabilities; relationships between project
sub-units, or what we term ‘project parts’;
relationships between data subsets and variables,
and so it goes on.
We have come to the conclusion that the quality of
relationships determines almost everything else –
the degree to which the project vision is palpably
shared, the levels of alignment and integration
across the project organisation, the trust by
financiers and head offices to let project teams get
on with it, the motivation for contractors to build in
collaboration with operators, the shared appetite
for finding solutions, the constructive management
of real conflicts of interest, the pro-active
identification of performance deviations that are
significant … and so the list goes on.
So there it is – it’s as easy and as difficult as that – relationships!

August 2014
7
OUR RESEARCH APPROACH
Step 1: Auditing the Current Literature
We undertook an audit of the current literature and published findings identifying key success
factors for both mega and major projects (please see list of references).
From this we distilled a list of key factors that writers and practitioners consistently referred
to. Please note, it was found when reviewing the literature that the authors had identified and
explored key factors that ranged across varying levels of strategic and tactical altitude.
By this, we mean some factors identified were of a high-level strategic nature, some of a mid-
level tactical nature, and some of a ground-level technical nature. Because of this, it was not
possible to universally apply any form of generic or systematic ranking in regard to their
significance in determining project success or failure.
As well, much of the data we accessed was case-study based and qualitative in nature,
thereby adding to the difficulties of ranking identified factors in order of agreed significance

August 2014
8
Step 2: Distilling Keogh’s Current Insights
We also reflected on Keogh’s own substantial experience of working on multiple mega and
major projects to identify the hard-earned wisdoms from our own sweet and bitter
experiences. Some of the projects we have worked on include:
Exxon Mobil’s PNGLNG (2009 – 2014)
WMC Olympic Dam expansion (1998 – 2000)
GLNG (Santos and PETRONAS)
QCLNG upstream with QGC and BG
Woodside, Browse and James Price Point
APLNG (Conoco Phillips)
Apache - Western Australia - JV projects
Bond University
Shell - German Creek Open Cut Mine
Saraji & Norwich Park Mines, Dysart Town Development, Utah Development
Gallery Gold
Intrepid Mines (2010 – 2012)
Bathurst Resources (2010 – 2014)
Step 3: Distilling This Input to Identify Key Functions to Manage
From the combined input of Steps 1 and 2 we distilled a number of what we have termed ‘key
functional areas’ that writers and practitioners consistently referred to, and which we also
have consistently identified in our own practice. We have borrowed the terminology for
classification of six of these key areas from research completed by SBC Capital projects in
2012. We added a seventh: ‘Front end loading, project shaping’.
These are:
1. Front End Loading, Project Shaping
2. Governance
3. Project Management Processes
4. Contracting & Procurement
5. People & Organisation
6. External Stakeholders
7. Technical Challenges
Image: Mega Project Seven Key Success Factors Model

August 2014
9
Step 4: Developing the
Questionnaire
These categorisations of function were
then developed into a two-part
questionnaire. Part A of the
questionnaire identified a total of 37
significant items across these ‘Seven
Key Functional Areas’, and asked
participants to rank each one on a 10-
point scale according to its significance
(re project success). Participants were
also invited to provide an additional
open-ended commentary on each item
as well as on each of the ‘Seven Key
Functional Areas’.
Part B of the Questionnaire asked six
open-ended questions:
1. On the basis of your experience
with mega projects, what do you
think are the three most critical
factors for ensuring the success of
a mega project?
2. What is the most powerful advice
you could give to someone who is
stepping into an executive/senior
project manager’s role on a mega
project?
3. What, in your opinion, are the most
important mechanisms for
achieving integration across all
parts of a mega project? (i.e. they
could be particular systems,
processes, tools, a style of
leadership, key behaviours, specific
values, other levers)
4. What do you think are the
emergent issues and trends over
the next five to 20 years that
future mega project managers will
have to embrace/deal with?
5. If you have had association with
Keogh Consulting within your
project experience, what were the
most useful aspects of Keogh
Consulting’s contribution in
supporting project success?
6. From your association with Keogh
Consulting, what have you
personally and professionally
retained that continues to be of
value?
Step 5: Conducting the
Questionnaire Interviews
Over thirty individuals were invited by
Keogh to participate in the survey
interviews. As noted, these were
predominantly former or current
clients/colleagues with in-depth
experience representative of a diversity
of executive-level roles on mega or
major projects (or both).
Twenty-six of our invitees subsequently
agreed to participate in an hour-long
interview where they were
systematically taken through the
questionnaire and their answers
recorded. They represented the
following cross-section of mega/major
project roles:
Chief executive officers
Project executives
Managing directors
Executive vice presidents
Senior vice presidents
General managers
Directors
Senior project managers

10
August 2014
Step 6: Analysing the Data
We have analysed the data and identified key findings. We then overlaid these findings with
Keogh’s own insights to distil another level of new understandings. We present these to you.
KEY FINDINGS
ORGANISATION OF FINDINGS
All our findings from both the quantitative and qualitative data sets are organised into:
1. Seven key functional areas
2. Ten recurring critical themes
3. Four foundational principles
Image: Mega Project Critical Success Factors

11
August 2014
Seven Key Functional Areas:
1. Front end loading, project shaping
2. Governance
3. Project management processes
4. Contracting & procurement
5. People & organisation
6. External stakeholders
7. Technical challenges
Ten Recurring Critical Themes:
1. Continuous clarity of project focus – vision, project definition, risks, deliverables
2. Agreed philosophies and approaches underpin all functioning (including values)
3. Key internal stakeholders are aligned and understand their role/part
4. Every project is unique – project teams must be empowered to get on with the job of
addressing challenges in uniquely/locally effective ways
5. Systems are important but it is people who make them work
6. Integration across project interfaces
7. Project leadership is passionately committed and ‘walks the talk’
8. Chaos, disruption, problems, conflicts will occur– it is how they are addressed
9. A culture of accountability is actively sustained
10. The right people on-board with the right skills at the right time
Four Foundational Principles:
1. Coherence, alignment and integration
2. Embracing & working with the dynamic, evolutionary nature of mega projects
3. Perpetual striving for balance
4. Fit-for-purpose Leadership

12
August 2014
KEOGH CONSULTING’S APPROACHES
The Findings
Seven Key Functional Areas
As previously noted, these were identified as a result of auditing the current literature to
extract what writers and practitioners identify as the key success factors for mega projects, in
conjunction with a distillation of Keogh’s own experience.
Table 1: Key Function
Responses
The table above depicts the average score across the seven functions, as a result of participants
ranking the importance of significant items within each function on a scale of 1-10.
As you will see, the key function definitively ranked as being of greatest importance is
‘governance’, closely followed by ‘people and organisation’. It is of little surprise that these two
areas have both been given a priority ranking as, in reality, they importantly overlap in form
and function.
Just to clarify what we mean by each in this study, we have defined ‘Governance’ as being:
the degree of clarity and alignment regarding project vision/objectives/strategy by key
internal stakeholders, the resolution of conflicts between stakeholders regarding such, and
their clarity/agreement in respect to each other’s roles and accountabilities.
We have defined ‘People and organisation’ as encapsulating: Project leadership, the
alignment and integration between project parts, and the expression of shared values and
behaviours.
8.75
9.14
8.05
7.82
9.06
8.43
8.53
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
FRONT END LOADING
GOVERNANCE
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
CONTRACTING &PROCUREMENT
PEOPLE & ORGANISATIONS
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
TECHNICAL CHALLENGES
Key Functions Responses

13
August 2014
The seven most highly scored items out of all 37 items across the seven Functional areas
(which participants scored on a 10 point scale) is further revealing. Please refer to Table 2.
What becomes immediately evident is that there are two items only that have been scored
in the ‘critically important’ category by every interviewee.
These are:
Seven Most Highly Scored Items from across the
Seven Key Functional Areas (of the possible 37 items):
Functional
Area
Average
%’age
1
1.
Project leadership is passionately committed to
delivering on time, on budget, operationally ‘fit-for-
purpose’
People &
Organisation
9.79 100%
2.
Leaders consistently model and reinforce
values/behaviour’
People &
Organisation
9.64 100%
There were 5 other stand-out items which attracted a high ranking. These were:
3.
Leaders are good at managing relationships, energizing
teams and individuals
People &
Organisation
9.43 93%
4.
Key values embedded from the outset and inform
decisions/practices throughout project
People &
Organisation
9.36 93%
5.
Project risks are clearly understood during project
shaping/front-end loading
Front End
Loading
9.46 93%
6.
Rigorously clarify project vision and definition during
project shaping/front-end loading
Front End
Loading
9.25 86%
7. Key internal stakeholders are clear and aligned Governance 9.36 86%
Table 2: Seven Most Highly Scored Items across Functional Areas
Image: Seven Key Functional Areas – 7 most highly scored items
1 % refers to number of respondents who rated this particular item as being ‘Critically Important’ to Mega Project Success (a
9 or 10 ranking on the 10 point scale)

14
August 2014
Table 3: The seven most highly ranked items across the seven Functional Areas
We think it is significant that four of these seven most highly ranked items are from the
Function ‘People and Organisation’. This lends further support to our broader finding that
relationships, interpersonal as well as organizational, are key to everything.
9.46 9.36 9.79 9.43 9.36 9.64
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
Q5.
Q6.
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
Q5.
Q6.
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
Q5.
Q6.
Q7.
Q8.
Q9.
Q10.
Q11.
Q12.
Q13.
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
9.25
FRONT END LOADING GOVERNANCE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROCESSES
CONTRACTING
&
PROCUREMENT
PEOPLE & ORGANISATION
EXTERNAL
STAKEHOLDERS
TECHNICAL
CHALLENGES

15
August 2014
Ten Recurring Critical Themes:
These emerged from our analysis of all the data, quantitative and qualitative. Comments
made by participants in response to our open-ended questions aligned with and expanded
upon how they had scored items in Part A of the questionnaire. These identified themes were
referred to consistently by participants in their anecdotal input. The meaning and significance
of each is outlined in the following pages.
1. Clarity and agreement of project focus – vision, project definition, risks, deliverables
2. Agreed project philosophies and approaches (including values)
3. Key internal stakeholders are aligned and understand their role/part
4. Every project is unique – project teams must be empowered to get on with the job of
addressing challenges in uniquely/locally effective ways
5. Systems are important but it is people who make them work
6. Integration across project interfaces
7. Project leadership is passionately committed and ‘walks the talk’
8. Chaos, disruption, problems, conflicts will occur– it is how they are addressed
9. A culture of accountability is actively sustained
10. The right people on-board with the right skills at the right time
Image: Ten Recurring Critical Themes

16
August 2014
1. Clarity and agreement of project
focus – vision, project definition, risks,
deliverables
The project vision, definition and
objectives need to be rigorously
clarified and agreed upon by the time
the project gets to FID (final
investment decision). Until then, there
was agreement amongst participants
that there should be flexibility for re-
focusing and adjustment, and that the
process is really one of a progressive
firming up. However, by and following
FID, these markers must remain
immutable. They also should be
embraced by key stakeholders at that
point, particularly venture partners, the
board, the project owner (head office,
project executive), and key external
bodies etc.
Participants regularly sounded a note of
caution against excessive optimism
when shaping project definition,
objectives and cost/schedule
commitments prior to FID – driven by
enthusiasm for successfully convincing
the market of a project’s commercial
viability. It was highlighted by many
that this frequently sets up a project for
failure when teams subsequently
struggle to meet unrealistic
commitments. Many noted that the
market’s perceptions of a project’s
value are highest at FID, undergo an
immediate decline immediately
afterwards and for the greater part of
the project’s duration (as the realities
of risks and challenges are thrown into
higher relief), and increase again when
nearing project completion.
2. Agreed project philosophies and
approaches decided upon at outset
(including values)
Participants agreed that strategic decisions
be made from the outset about the most
appropriate ‘fit-for-purpose’ philosophies,
principles and approaches for guiding and
shaping strategies and processes across all
functional areas of practice e.g. risk,
contracting & procurement, construction,
commissioning, operating, stakeholder
management, Health Safety Environment
(HSE), employment and industrial practices
etc.
They emphasised that unless there is a
strategic rationale and coherence to these,
decisions are at risk of being made in an ad
hoc or misdirected fashion, along lines that
may not best support achievement of
project outcomes. As well, there was robust
consensus that core values should also be
agreed upon from the outset to inform and
navigate decision-making and collective
behaviour across all dimensions of the
project for its duration.
Core values
should be agreed
upon from the
outset
.

17
August 2014
3. Key internal stakeholders are
aligned and understand their
role/part
This includes owners, the board,
corporate/head office, project
executive, the broader project team,
contractors, and operators. They all
need to be continuously clear and
aligned around the vision, objectives,
strategy, business plans,
implementation plans, and the part
they play in its achievement.
While participants identified this
alignment as being fundamental, they
collectively commented on how
challenging it is to achieve. This is
because a mega project is a different
beast to a large stand-alone project
with its one identified management
structure. In effect, it is a ‘colony’ or
‘program’ of projects, which together
constitute ‘the project’, thereby
demanding uniquely new ways for
achieving role clarity, coordination and
integration across its many arenas. To
exemplify this complexity, see the
image (Complexity of Alignment)
below.
Image: Complexity of Alignment – highlighting
intricacy of alignment and integration within and
across project parts
4. Every project is unique –
project teams must be constituted
and empowered to get on with the
job of addressing challenges in
uniquely/locally effective ways
Participants consistently commented on
the need for early role clarity regarding
the differing responsibilities of the
head/corporate office and the executive
project team. They frequently referred
to the fact that one of the greatest aids
as well as impediments to project
success is previous mega project
success. For while this means there will
be a retention within the company of
in-depth mega project knowledge and
skills, there is also the increased risk of
reduced adaptability to the different
challenges of the new project – ‘we’ve
done this before, we know what we’re
doing’. They agreed that the project
team must be free to get on with
establishing new norms, protocols,
solutions, and adaptations.
Further comment was made that in
recent years, the functional/structural
model has grown in ascendancy,
correlating during this time with a
significant decline in mega project
success rates. It was posited that
because functional people are often
based in the head/corporate office
reporting to their head of function also
located there (rather than to the on-
location project executive), that the
focus and priorities are not as strongly
project-centric, and that this can result
in reduced effectiveness.

18
August 2014
5. Systems are important but it
is people who make them work
The general consensus in relation to
this surprised us. Because there is
much written about the importance of
standardised management systems and
processes for systematising the array of
project functions (for example:
capturing, managing and disseminating
information; dashboard alerting for
cost-schedule control and risk
management; streamlining
communication; procurement tracking,
and so on), we thought participants
would give this a high ranking of
importance.
While they concurred that good
management systems and processes
are critical to success, they emphasised
that of even greater importance is the
performance capability of the people
operating them. As an example, one
participant commented that while there
are data-capturing systems that can
track copious quantities of information,
‘it’s the wisdom to know what
information is fundamentally
significant, and most of it isn’t, and it’s
people who discern that’.
6. Alignment & integration
across project interfaces
This and leadership were the most
consistently identified issues of
importance by participants. There was
violent agreement amongst them that
vertical and horizontal
alignment/integration (up/down
through management levels and across
team/provider interfaces) is
fundamental.
Participants identified it as being
achieved through a variety of
mechanisms and indicated there is ‘no
cookie-cutter model’ for achieving it.
Most commonly, they pin-pointed
‘leadership’ that aligns people/teams
with project plans as being most
critical. A significant number of
participants suggested that this best
occurs through routinely bringing
executive team members together
(ideally in the same physical space,
otherwise virtually), with immediate
access to new information/data at
whatever level of altitude required
(high level and broad, or deep and
specific), to nut out issues and agree
on solutions. These should then be
cascaded through their teams.
Other mechanisms variously identified
included; communication, creating a
spirit/culture of collaboration and
partnership, clear and aligned
accountabilities, integrated systems for
information distribution and analysis,
and workable structures with requisite
accountabilities.
7. Project leadership is
passionately committed and ‘walks
the talk’
This means the project leadership has a
heart-felt passion (as much as head-
based knowledge) for the project’s
vision and purpose, and for delivering
on time, on budget, and operationally
‘fit-for-purpose’. One participant
explained it like this: ‘Relationships
between people in the project
leadership team must have twinkle,
passion’. Another commented: ‘The
project leadership team must live the
project’.
However, they emphasised that this
passion and commitment needs to be
pragmatically, practically actioned.
Having words and actions match also
came through as being fundamental.
One participant explained: ‘The
strength of a project’s purpose comes
from constancy of focus and
consistency in behaviour’.
The strength of a
project’s purpose
comes from
constancy of focus
and consistency in
behaviour

19
August 2014
8. Expect chaos, disruption,
problems, conflicts of interest,
creative tensions – It’s how these
are addressed that matters
Mega projects are typically undertaken
within complex, dynamic, challenging
environs – geographically, politically,
culturally. As well, they are multi-
faceted, multi-dimensional and multi-
segmented entities – projects within
Projects. As such, they exhibit
complicated matrices of conflicting and
competing interests, of creative
tensions and influence-based jockeying,
of winners and losers. To put it most
simply, they are moving feasts of
political maneuverings.
Therefore the attitude and skill sets
that best support success in this
environment embrace this reality of
dynamism with flexibility, agility and
responsiveness. The focus then is not
on the pursuit of perfection, for no such
thing can exist in such a context, but
on striking an optimal balance when
off-setting gains and losses, one set of
interests against another, risk exposure
and cost savings, schedule blowouts,
longer-term functionality, and so on.
In saying this, participants recognised
that some things on the table such as
safety protocols or systems for
ensuring fiscal rigour should be non-
negotiable.
9. Embed and sustain a culture
of accountability
Participants agreed that this should be
established from the outset. They
identified that a culture of
accountability is importantly driven by
values and the behaviours that
explicitly demonstrate it.
They also expressed that these should
be consistently modelled by the project
leaders, and supported by structural
mechanisms such as clearly defined
roles/accountabilities, and a
standardised process for performance
management.
Participants strongly expressed that
lapses in accountability should be
immediately addressed, including the
removal, in some instances, of co-
workers and/or contractors from the
project.
10. The right people on board,
with the right skills, at the right
time
Because the lifespan of a project is
relatively short compared to the
lifespan of most companies, it is
important to short-circuit this process
by importing quality people from the
outset. That is, those with the required
knowledge and technical
expertise/experience, necessary
broader skill set, desired leadership
aptitudes, and culturally-aligned values
and attitudes.
However, participants also recognised
that a project’s needs for differing fields
of expertise morph over time through
different project phases, and that this
should be accommodated by the
colleague & contractor recruitment
philosophy/strategy decided upon at
the outset.
They also commented that the skills of
the project leader whose role it is to get
the project scoped and through the FID
gateway are different to those required
of the project leader required to
steward the construction of the entity
to completion. Most thought that a
project leader rarely had sufficient
adaptability of approach to successfully
stay the entire journey, but that more
commonly, the baton of executive
manager should be passed at least
once.

20
August 2014
Foundational Principles
The data was subjected to another level of analysis to identify the following foundational
principles.
1. Coherence, alignment & integration
2. Embracing & working with the dynamic, evolutionary nature of mega projects
3. Perpetual striving for balance
Image: Four Foundational Principles
1. Coherence, Alignment and Integration
This is typically understood as the
process of bringing the actions of the
project’s many parts (business units,
support functions, contractors, and the
people working across these) into line
with the project’s strategy, planned
objectives, business model/processes
so that all efforts are focused – and
doing so in a manner congruent with
core values and elected standards of
behaviour.
However there is much evidence,
written and anecdotal, to suggest that
the reality of achieving such coherence,
alignment and integration falls far short
of noble intentions. It is interesting to
note that in the Project Management
Institute’s (PMI) Pulse Report of 2014,
their findings reveal that ‘58 per cent of
projects are not highly aligned to the
project strategy, resulting in a finding
that 44 per cent of strategic initiatives
across projects are unsuccessful’.
Why is this figure so high? Based on
our Keogh experience, we know that
using conventional thinking and
mechanisms to drive awareness of
strategy across the many parts of the
project organisation is done with
variable success. What we do even less
well is enabling people everywhere to
palpably understand the strategy
and their direct/indirect role in its
achievement. Consequently, the even
greater challenge of coordinating the
inter-related actions across
multiple interfaces is addressed least
well.
Despite our participants’ collective
agreement about its significance, they
universally conveyed that achieving
coherence, alignment and integration
for strategy execution remains one of
the most elusive and challenging
aspects of mega project management.
As one participant commented: ‘There’s
no one-size-fits-all recipe and the
danger is you can end up with a
strange soup of initiatives.’
58 % of
projects are
not highly
aligned to the
project
strategy

21
August 2014
Generally, participants referred to
single item mechanisms for achieving
it, such as ‘through shared vision and
goals’; or ‘there needs to be clear roles
and accountabilities so everyone knows
their part’; or ‘cascade it through the
top three echelons’; or ‘have an
integrated dashboard and scorecard so
everyone can access the important
data’; or ‘have integrated plans and
subset meetings with visual graphics,
and have the one integrated schedule’.
So why is it so challenging? Firstly, we
contend that while executive project
teams might well spend days, weeks,
even months devising well-crafted
strategies, the mechanisms for
inculcating strategy into the human
operating system of the project (the
hearts and minds of the people)
frequently reflects a lack of
understanding of how to collectively
engage, make meaning with, and
motivate people. Also we contend that
the mechanisms most commonly used
reflect a top-centric approach. By this
we mean that the ‘cascade’ is seen as
most appropriately and primarily
occurring from top to bottom, with less
emphasis placed on ‘dispersing’ across
and throughout. We believe both
require equal attention.
We further observe that the process of
coordinating actions and responses
across business unit/functional
boundaries is likewise driven by a top-
down impetus, and that the value of an
across-through impetus is frequently
underrated or overlooked.
We will address these issues further in
the following section on ‘Keogh
Consulting’s Insights & Contributions’.
We simply assert here that achieving
cohesion, alignment and coherence is,
in our view, the most fundamental of
principles for achieving mega project
success. Of course, its successful
achievement is fully reliant on the
relationships between project parts and
between people. This has been our
assertion from the outset of this paper.
Building these requires the use of both
‘soft’ and ‘hard’ approaches! We will
explore in the following section too.
Mega project
success is
reliant on the
relationships
between
project parts
and people

22
August 2014
2. Embracing & Working with the
Dynamic, Evolutionary Nature of Mega
Projects
Because mega projects are,
as we’ve noted throughout,
dynamic, fast-changing, high-
pressured entities, they call
for an approach of ongoing
vigilance, responsiveness and agility-of-
response to continuously emergent issues
and challenges.
In the Pulse Report by PMI, only 15 per
cent of organisations reported high
organisational agility – a concerning
statistic. PMI comments: ‘High
performers demonstrate successful
organisational change management,
which is more effective with actively
engaged sponsors’. While most mega
projects are set up adequately in the early
phases, many of them fail to adapt over
time to changing requirements and
challenges, thereby leading to poor
governance, control and management.
Resilience in the
face of continual
perturbation
Working to embrace the changing nature
of circumstance and need most
particularly requires a distinctive
‘mentality’ supported by a specific body of
skills. Participants in our study
commented on the importance of a
mindset that is open to and comfortable
with uncertainty (one participant termed it
‘being comfortable with operating in the
grey zones’), while creating reference
points and structures/systems for
enabling logical, systematic progression
within this uncertainty. Participants also
talked about knowing which things
can/should remain ‘grey’, and which
should be locked down. A number
suggested that rather than having specific
targets which can produce rigidity and
loss of perspective, it is more helpful to
think about ‘target ranges’.
Operating in this way also involves having
a healthy level of self-belief. Participants
described this as ‘the ability to back
yourself in decisions, not second-
guessing’. One went on to explain:
‘Sometimes you won’t be able to access
all the data you’d like, or you decide not
to when you’ve done your cost/benefit
analysis’.
This view was reiterated by a number.
What emerged was a view that optimal
performance in these environments
requires a curious mixture of science, art,
fact, insight, knowledge, experience and
creativity, the basis of which is a strong
capacity for holistic, systemic, and
integrative thinking as much as for
rational, deductive analysis.
Agile processes were also identified as
requiring highly collaborative networks of
relationship and interaction to ensure
meaningful communication and
collaboration across multiple levels,
constituencies and teams.
In terms of internal team functioning,
participants were keen advocates of self-
organising teams, but definitively rejected
the notion of a consensus-driven culture
or process. One participant’s comments
echoed the sentiments of a significant
number: ‘A generalised agreement should
be efficiently achieved – and then the
leader must make the final decision.’
However, they emphasised that this can
only work when the right people are at
the table.
In summary, these processes are
frequently iterative in nature rather than
pre-determined, yet they maintain
sufficient form and process for effective
organisation. All of these features afford
resilience in the face of a process of
continual perturbation. We have
identified this principle as critical to mega
project success and yet it is a feature that
is frequently not well understood or
emphasised.

23
August 2014
3. Perpetual Striving for
Balance
This principle flies directly
in the face of conventional
attachments to ‘best’ or
even ‘perfect’.
Instead it invites us to embrace the
infinitely more liberating notion of
‘optimal’, which we define as ‘the best in
the circumstances’.
So why this distinction?
Mega project management often loses
solid ground whenever the quicksands of
differing interests, opinions, expectations
and imperative play out, resulting in
disruption, sometimes impasse, and
causing project parameters to be diluted
and sometimes confused.
Worst of all, achievement of project
outcomes may be obstructed. In
commenting on the interplay of these
cultural, political and interpersonal
complexities, Louis Klein (SEgroup 2010)
puts it succinctly: ‘Once we leave the
world of Newtonian physics and
engineering, as soon as requirements
grow beyond the linearity of the technical
blueprint, the success rates of projects
collapse ... certainties take a tumble and,
with them, the entire project’.
So how do projects regain stability in the
face of such real conflicts of interest -
fiscal, market, political, operational,
cultural, professional and personal. Our
participants universally responded: ‘By
recognising that essentially everything is
a judicious trade-off – the skill is in the
balancing of specific losses and benefits
for overall gain.’
In fact, there was general agreement that
conflict is, apart from being inevitable,
actually healthy. Participants frequently
referred to it as ‘creative tension’, and
made comments such as: ‘Of course
you’re going to get tensions and conflicts,
like between your projects team and your
operations team, one wants to get the
thing built as quickly as possible, the
other wants the bells and whistles
because they’ll have to operate it’; ‘you’ll
always have the contractor trying to
exploit every little loophole, you know
that, and you’ve just got to stand your
ground’; ‘look, the community has to live
with it for years to come so, of course, it
pays to make concessions, you’ve just
got to weigh it all up’; ‘you continually
have to decide, is it worth blowing your
costs and schedule to stop and fix it or
not’; ‘the owners are reacting to the
market, there’s huge downward pressure
from them, but in the end, you’ve got to
make sure it’s operable’.
Perpetually striving for balance on the
costs/benefits ratio (i.e. ‘what’s
optimal?’) is a uniquely different
approach when, more broadly across
business, we are used to operating
according to the mantra of ‘world best
practice’.
The arena of mega project management
can seduce with the assumption that
complexity is explained primarily by the
number of inter-relating project parts,
but, in reality, it also describes a
complexity beyond that – the complexity
of interests. This shift in attitude and
approach we believe is fundamental, and
that is why we have identified it as the
third of our four underpinning principles.
Perpetually
striving for
balance is a
uniquely different
approach

24
August 2014
Other than the issue of
alignment and integration,
leadership was the other issue
of particular significance
commonly identified by
participants (reflected in both
our quantitative as well as qualitative
data).
This is not surprising – participants said
leadership is the glue that holds
everything else together.
So what is it about leadership that they
emphasised? Essentially, it is what
breathes life, passion, purpose and
direction into the mega project marathon
– that sustains and navigates it through
to the finishing line.
In this they identified multiple
dimensions. But, the unique distinction of
the leadership function, in contrast to the
management function, is best
summarised by Roman emperor Marcus
Aurelius in his statement ‘the secret of all
victory lies in the organisation of the non-
obvious’ (Marcus Aurelius AD 121-180)
‘The secret of all
victory lies in the
organisation of
the non-obvious’
Marcus Aurelius
John Kotter’s (Kotter, 1990)
distinctions between effective
leadership and effective
management provide further
insight.
Briefly, he defines effective
leadership as embodying three key
roles:
(1) to establish shared
vision/purpose/focus/destiny
(2) to help people make ongoing
meaning of the
(3) to keep people motivated and
mobilised along the way,
particularly in the face of setbacks
and challenges.
He defines effective management as
embodying three key roles:
(1) to strategise/plan for the
realisation of
(2) to organise
systems/processes/structures for
executing strategy/plans and
(3) to problem-solve along the way.
Participants typically referred to both
leadership and management capabilities
when referring to ‘good project
leadership’ – this is not surprising as both
skill sets are interdependent and mutually
reinforcing.
Quite commonly they referred to
leadership as being the shared
responsibility of members of the
executive project team. They believed
that an effective leader did not try to do
it all on their own, but leveraged the
abilities, insights, observations and
expertise of their team members, without
slipping into the limitations of a
‘consensus-at-all-costs’ mentality.

25
August 2014
In other words, the leader should be a
team player without abdicating their role
as penultimate decision-maker. This
more inclusive approach also involves
delegating responsibilities and putting in
place the necessary elements, including
support and autonomy, for others to be
successful.
They emphasised that a project leader
must also be able to hold the big picture
and give constant surveillance to the
project terrain as well as knowing when
to deep-dive for specific detail. They
made regular reference to the importance
of the leader being visible, engaging with
people, and acting as a cipher/translator
to make real the meaning of trends,
challenges and decisions.
Leaders need to
be visible,
engaging with
people and
making real
meaning of
trends,
challenges and
decisions.
Finally, participants emphasised the
importance of what can be best termed
‘fit-for-purpose’ leadership, suggesting
that the skill set required at the outset to
shape and drive the project to a
successful FID is different to that required
for the long and tumultuous haul of
construction. We have already made
mention of this when discussing ‘Having
the Right People On Board at the Right
Time’.
The skills most highlighted as important
at the outset are those of flair,
enthusiasm and persuasion. Those
required during the body of construction
are resilience, flexibility and grace in the
face of persistent challenges, and
strategic/systematic doggedness.
Image: Fit for Purpose Leadership
So, these are the four principles explicated. In identifying and exploring these, we have
posed a number of challenges regarding their application.
The following section provides some insights from Keogh Consulting’s perspective on how to
address these.

26
August 2014
KEOGH CONSULTING’S INSIGHTS & CONTRIBUTIONS:
As a means to present these, we have developed a model (below) for organising our
suggested initiatives.
This model is a synthesis of Bolman and Deal’s 4 Frames Model and Kenneth Wilbur’s 4
Quadrants Model (’A Theory of Everything’).
Image: Four Lenses Model
It consists of four
quadrants, or ‘lenses’ as
we shall refer to them.
Two of these are above
the waterline, so they
are ordinarily more
‘visible’. These are:
(1) Structure (e.g.
systems, processes, and
organisational design
i.e. the usual artefacts
of internal organisation)
and
(2) People (e.g.
aptitudes, capabilities,
skills).
Two are below the
waterline, meaning that
while their impact is
palpable, they are less
easy to ‘see’. These
are:
(3) Culture (e.g.
values, unspoken
agreements, norms,
behaviours) and
(4) Power (e.g. formal
power, informal
networks and channels
of power, who has
influence).
Our experience tells us that the successful application of the four
principles (identified in the previous section) requires a coordinated
and simultaneous implementation of actions from across all four
lenses – this is the key!

27
August 2014
We will address each of the four principles through the perspective of each of these lenses, to
offer some examples of various strategies/mechanisms for coordinated implementation.
For more information about Keogh’s full suite of integrated interventions and how to apply
them, please refer to our white paper Mega Projects – the Matrix of Transformational
Methodologies.
Lens 1 – Structure
The point about aiming for optimal
organisation on mega projects is that ‘the
whole’ becomes greater than ‘the sum of
the parts’. This means that better synergies
between the parts occurs so that costs and
time wastage are reduced, and operational
functionality is improved. In essence, more
value is extracted. When the right hand
knows what the left is doing, resources
(technical, people, informational,
networking) are usefully shared, work
schedules and approaches are better
coordinated so that processes dovetail, and
duplications are reduced – the jigsaw pieces
fit together more easily.
In our experience, a fundamental
mechanism in facilitating this is to
establish at the outset a Transformation
Plan. What is this? It’s not a strategy
plan or even a business plan, nor is it a
change management plan. It is a
detailed scoping of coordinated and
integrated initiatives specific to ensuring
the achievement of ‘coherence, alignment
and integration’ across all parts of the
project.
Therefore, the transformation plan sits in
parallel with the project’s strategic plan,
business plans, and operational plans,
and identifies a matrix of
‘alignment/integration’ interventions
ranging across the broad arenas of
business structures/systems, people
performance and cultural norms.
Transformation plans will always have a
‘change management’ component to
them as the dynamic nature of projects
ensures they are in a process of continual
change (Principle 2).
The 7S +2S Model (an adaptation of
McKinsey’s 7S Model) is a useful aid for
identifying the specific arenas to address in
a transformation plan.
Image: 7S +2S Model
As you will see, these arenas are:
Structure
Strategy
Skills
Staff
Style
Systems
Shared values/culture
Space
Society

28
August 2014
Another initiative we advocate is to
ensure the ‘transformation processes’
falling out of this transformation plan
are implemented through a ‘dispersed’,
not a ‘conventional’ model (structure).
By this, we mean that a central
organising hub (or ‘steering group’) is
established with overarching
accountability for the implementation of
the transformation agenda.
This transformation hub is allied to the
project executive, and is supported by
a structure of interconnected, activity-
themed satellites with accountability for
progressing different transformation
strategies/actions.
Image: Coordinating Hub
Creating roles with the sole purpose of
ensuring ‘coherence, alignment &
integration’ across identified team and
business-unit interfaces is another
powerful yet relatively under-utilised
mechanism. These roles report directly
to the project executive as well as to
the central organising transformation
hub (mentioned above). For example,
an ‘alignment role’ might be created to
support the interface between the
project and operation teams, another to
support the interface between
upstream and downstream teams.
Image: Hub & Satellite Model
The art of using structural mechanisms
to help the project organisation to work
with the dynamic, evolutionary nature
of mega projects (Principal 2) is
another issue. Because mega projects
are on a trajectory of changing
requirements in form, nature, and
practice, we know that it is vital that
their organisational structures remain
adaptable. Team sizes quickly expand
and contract, and critical capabilities
morph and change as the project
traverses its different phases. At times
it can seem like a moving feast. The
project structure needs to remain open
to fluxing and flexing while the project
culture needs to remain constant, an
anchor for shaping behaviour. This is
the challenge!
In our experience, there are key
junctures during the project cycle when
the whole enterprise is more
vulnerable. This is at the time of
transitioning between project phases,
and in our experience, this is often not
addressed well. Let us explain more.

29
August 2014
We think of mega projects as having four key phases in their life cycle: Phase One – Front
End Shaping (conceptualising, analysing options and selecting, defining); Phase Two –
Detailed Design & Procurement, Phase Three – Execution & Construction; Phase Four –
Commissioning & Operations
Image: Mega Projects 4 Key phases
Planned project management processes
are required to address the critical
demands of these transitions (the spaces
between the parts) as much as the
phases themselves. This includes pre-
emptively identifying their key elements,
including challenges and opportunities,
and instigating strategies for ensuring
that departure from one phase and entry
into the next is done efficiently and
effectively.
A good transformation plan will include
mechanisms for mobilising the relevant
people/parts to do this. For example, the
loss of time which can extend to months
when transitioning from FID to
procurement/construction can become
significant if it results in the project
forever playing catch-up with its
schedule. Likewise, the loss of project
efficacy when transitioning from
construction to operations can be
similarly disruptive. Establishing
transition teams to oversee these gear
changes is another structural solution to
support this.
Principle 3, the need to perpetually strive
for balance to secure overall best
outcomes, also benefits from
interventions through the structural lens.
Being able to effectively weigh up and
balance gains and losses when making
decisions requires having the right,
accurate and timely data to hand.
Project teams now have access to reliable
and well-tested data collection,
management and dashboard alerting
systems – none of our respondents
identified a need that is not currently
being met by these, and none could
identify any new system capability they’d
put on their wish-list. In fact, many
commented that they often feel they are
drowning in data.
However, good data analysis for effective
decision-making requires more than
having the ‘hardware’ for its collection. It
is also dependent on being able to
discern what data is meaningful (and
should be collected), knowing the
deviations in data feedback that are
significant, and making strategic and
operational meaning of them. It also
means being able to interrogate data
from many angles to uncover the system
drivers (design elements, assumptions,
habitual practices, unchallenged norms).
This may sound simple, but it’s not so
easy to do. Developing this level of
system self-awareness is a sophisticated
skill.

30
August 2014
It starts with a values commitment – of
wanting to push beyond band-aid
solutions and devise sustainable ones, or
at least when recognising the choice, to
weigh up the pros and cons of each vis-
a-vis the project’s longer-term interests
(schedule, costs, operability).
This requires an approach that is holistic
in nature, not short-term or
compartmentalised, and it requires
strategies for developing and/or
recruiting project leaders with this values
base and capability. This lands us in the
arena of the fourth principle - leadership.
It is important for project teams to
discern and identify the particular
model/philosophy of leadership that will
be ‘best fit’ throughout the duration of
project. Leadership approaches, and
more specifically thinking capabilities,
will necessarily vary from phase to
phase.
For example, during the Front End
Shaping and Design phase when project
conceptualisation, analysis, definition
and design are being undertaken, the
thinking skills required involve
negotiating complexity and ambiguity,
and evaluating the grey zones of
possibility. This demands thinking which
is divergent – that is, systemic and
integrative, so that the dots can be
joined in the absence of data that might
make these connections explicit or
irrefutable.
Image: Divergent Thinking Style
However, once into the action-oriented
phases of construction and
commissioning/operations, a different
thinking style is required which is logical
and deductive – convergent. The wisdom
required is in anticipating and planning
ahead for the leadership skill sets
needed at different phases, and
smoothly transitioning to these in a
timely fashion – usually through leaders
transitioning to new roles where their
aptitudes can be best utilised. However,
as we’ve previously emphasised, the
underpinning principles and values
remain constant throughout.
Image: Convergent Thinking Style
As well, we cannot over-emphasise the
importance of a leader’s relationship-
building skills in order to manage the
complexity of relationships inherent in
mega projects. To be able to bring out the
best in people, teams, business partners
and communities requires a high level of
emotional intelligence. Again, we believe
this should be both recruited for at the
outset as well as developed during the
project’s life.
Leadership
approaches and
capabilities vary
from phase to
phase within the
life of the
project

31
August 2014
Lens 2 – People
As noted earlier in the paper, it is
important that leaders understand the
difference between ‘communicating’ and
‘meaning-making’. Just what do we
mean by this?
We have referred to continuous change
being a fact of life for these projects.
This is Principle 2: ‘embracing and
working with the dynamic, evolutionary
nature of mega projects’. While this does
not necessarily require implementation of
a formalised ‘change management
program’, it does require that the psyche
of the leaders throughout the
organisation reflects this understanding –
that they are collectively engaged on a
journey of managing continuous change.
It is especially important that members of
the executive and senior management
teams have this awareness.
This means that the same basic tenets of
a formalised ‘change process’ will need to
be applied by executive/senior leaders.
This includes overseeing: identification of
emergent challenges and the necessary
changes for addressing them; making the
case across the project organisation for
these changes; building the
organisation’s capacity for embracing the
changes; monitoring implementation of
the changes (initiatives); reviewing their
impact/success and re-setting the focus
Project leaders
are collectively
engaged on a
journey of
managing
continuous
change
Image : Key Stages of Managing Change
Therefore executive and senior leaders
must necessarily adopt a ‘change
management’ mentality to managing
these ongoing shifts and re-positionings.
This especially involves being able to
regularly make the case for change with
colleagues (be that of a structural,
strategic, tactical, technological or
people-resourcing nature).
Too often we encounter an assumption
amongst leaders that this is taken care of
if they have a good ‘communications and
engagement’ plan. We say it involves
much more than this. Yes, a good plan is
a starting point for identifying and
organising the range of activities
necessary for getting the information ‘out
there’.
However, the real power in mobilising
people in a positive involving way lies in
directly engaging with them.

32
August 2014
This requires making meaning of the ‘why’
in changes – framing the issues and
identified solutions in ways that enable
people to see the impact and relevance to
them personally – their role, their
contribution, their success. Then hearts
as well as minds become engaged.
When teams see their and other’s unique
roles in creating something of meaning
and worth, then a project will take on a
focus and commitment of almost
unstoppable momentum.
When acting through the ‘people’ lens in
relation to the principle of ‘perpetually
striving for balance’, we encourage
executive and senior managers to think
more broadly about who they place in
which roles. Some roles will be better
served by a risk-averse, black/white
thinking approach and will suit people
who innately work from this base.
Image: The Why of Change
However other roles will require an
approach that flexibly finesses the subtle
trade-offs associated with risk/benefit,
short-term/long-term, and give/take
analysis. These roles are best filled by
people who thrive in the world of ‘grey’,
who demonstrate thinking ‘outside the
square’, and understand the
drivers/systems within which others
operate, including their scope for
flexibility. From this platform, they are
able to engage and negotiate with others
to extract optimal value for their team
and the project.
When genuine
alignment
occurs, a project
will take on
unstoppable
momentum

33
August 2014
The principle of leadership when viewed
through the ‘people’ lens is well
supported by a careful choice of the
organisation’s structure. We have
previously referred to ‘hub/satellite’ and
‘dispersed’ structures as alternatives to or
in conjunction with conventional top-
down silo structures.
With these, leadership is more likely to
emerge from within the organisation. This
is because there is more licence for
people to take responsibility for initiating
and working their relationships across the
boundaries of these satellites, rather than
relying on a ‘hierarchy of authority’ for
doing so.
The real power
in mobilising
people in a
positive way lies
in directly
engaging with
them.
This can be accelerated by promoting
opportunities for people to give input and
feedback for innovation and problem-
solving through additional mechanisms
such as think tanks and issue-specific
meetings.
In the end, we want everyone to take up
the mantle of leader/influencer within
their field of expertise and responsibility
– if they are aligned to the greater vision
and broader strategy.
Image: Hybrid Organisational Structure

34
August 2014
Lens 3 – Culture
For behaviours to become a way of being within a project organisation (part of the culture) they
need to be genuinely valued by the organisation’s decision-makers – then they will be given
expression through action. The lived values are the leader’s tools of alchemy for shaping an
organisation’s character.
Take for example Virgin Airlines Australia.
One of its core values is ‘we think
customer’, with an explanation: ‘our
customers are at the heart of everything
we do; we are passionate about creating
an outstanding flying experience; we
deliver consistently high service internally
and externally.’
To fly with this airline is to consistently
experience a high level of care for
passengers through the assistance that is
willingly offered, the bright, breezy and
comedic interactions of flight attendants,
and the pride and celebration when
landing the aircraft on time. Another
airline with, for example, a values set
focused primarily on internal efficiencies,
competitive pricing or superior industrial
conditions will deliver a different flying
experience – obviously one that reflects
their unique emphasis.
Image: Virgin Australia Culture & Values
The point is, values are power.
The degree to which a project’s leaders
collectively believe that coherence,
alignment and integration are key to a
project’s success will determine how
much the behaviours which facilitate this
will be seen in action – if there is strong
belief in its necessity, then collaboration
and partnership will be pursued, time and
effort will be taken to ensure everyone is
on the same page, conflicts of interest
and differences of opinion will be actively
addressed.
Likewise, if leaders believe that agile
responsiveness to emergent challenges is
fundamental to project success, then the
behaviours which reflect this will be
clearly seen – lateral and diverse ways of
thinking will be encouraged and
leveraged, pre-emptive problem-solving
and action will be in evidence, and an
attitude of ‘we make our own future’ will
prevail.
If striving for balance is considered core
to success by leaders, then this too will
be reflected through actions that focus on
winning the war rather than triumph in
the skirmishes. An attitude of enlightened
flexibility will prevail, wherein there is an
element of discretion exercised when
flexing and flowing. This attitude derives
essentially from a commitment to ‘fitness
for purpose’ – that is, whatever is
developed and instituted must meet the
changing demands of unfolding
circumstance, no more, no less.
Values are power

35
August 2014
The adage then is ‘be careful what you
value, for this you will bring to reality’.
Of course, in many instances we have
observed, executive teams are not
always cognisant of the vast array of
actions possible for enacting their values.
Their starting point is to establish crystal
clear clarity and heart-felt agreement as
to what their values actually are (real,
not assumed). We work extensively with
executive teams to identify the many
opportunities in the course of their daily
work to model and exemplify them. The
key is: the most powerful embedding of
values occurs when normal, everyday
tasks are undertaken in a manner which
expresses those values. Values are not
nebulous concepts meant to be
superimposed on the ‘real’ work – they
are the way in which the real work is
done.
One of the conundrums that can
challenge project leaders is when their
focus, approach and culture differs to that
of their corporate/head office. This can
result in frustration and stand-offs that
affect the efficiency and effectiveness of
decision-making. Making explicit these
differences can be a huge relief to all
concerned, enabling both groups to
understand the other’s pressures,
priorities and lived values, and to find
ways for moving forward together.
Unless they are an aligned voice on the
big issues, it is challenging for the rest of
the project organisation to achieve
alignment and integration.
Image: Keogh Consulting – Culture by Design
Values are not
meant to be
nebulous
concepts
superimposed on
the ‘real’ work
Sometimes there are professional
certainties, conventionalities and biases
that need to be challenged because they
limit a project’s capacity to respond to
dynamically changing needs. This may
involve making explicit the often
unspoken assumptions that underpin an
industry’s ‘taken-for-granted’
assumptions that can lead to rigidity in
decision-making. Challenging these can
open the project’s culture to new
possibilities of decision-making and
action.
It is really through the ‘Culture’ lens that
a project’s leadership framework comes
alive. This is because leadership cannot
be successfully developed and embedded
if it remains a formulaic or mechanical
imperative – the passion, desire, and
appetite for it must live in people’s hearts
through key influencers throughout the
organisation believing in and expressing
its value, and as importantly, ‘walking
their talk’ of good leadership.

36
August 2014
These symbolic methods of fertilisation
are worth far more than all the policies
and programs could ever effect. ‘Walking
the talk’ of leadership happens more
consistently when people aspire to lead
well because they’ve been on the
receiving end of good leadership and they
have a ‘felt’ experience of and belief in its
value. In other words, leading well has
become a strongly held personal value for
them, and is not simply a pragmatically
oriented ‘means to an end’.
Be careful what
you value, for
this you will
bring to reality
Another aspect of this lens is the
challenge of blending differing cultures of
leadership. We’ve already referred to the
potential impacts when there are
significant differences in approach
between the project executive and
head/corporate office, but there are other
entities where differences can become
problematic.
This includes contractors,
upstream/downstream teams, the
functions, venture partners. Sometimes it
helps to develop a behavioural
memorandum of understanding (how we
will behave, particularly in circumstances
of conflict) when other ‘softer’
approaches have little impact.
Leading well is a
strongly held
personal value
for good leaders,
not simply a
pragmatically
oriented ‘means
to an end’
This is a structural solution to a cultural
issue, but it may be the best that can be
achieved when underpinning values and
other pressures make alignment in more
fundamental ways impossible.
We encourage and support project teams
to set up these memorandums at the
outset if significant differences in
approach are anticipated. They should be
negotiated part-way through the project’s
life if habitual stand-offs arise that cannot
be resolved in other ways.

Keogh Consulting MegaProjects Whitepaper
August 2014
36

37
August 2014
Lens 4 – Power
Success requires
insight into
formal AND
informal lines of
power
We’ve already referred to the importance
of structures flexing and fluxing in
response to the unique demands of each
phase of development. Ensuring that the
organisational design is streamlined for
efficient decision-making as issues rapidly
unfold is important, but this needs to be
balanced with provision for adequate
levels of review and scrutiny. Roles and
accountabilities should always be clearly
defined to enable the formal powers
inherent within them to be exercised
effectively.
We also work with teams to help them
identify their informal avenues of power
and to work these pre-emptively. As is
usually standard practice now,
stakeholder maps and an engagement
strategy are developed at the outset to
identify the differing needs and concerns
of key stakeholders and the most likely
arenas of support/dissent. An important
aspect to this is facilitating an
interdependent mindset and driving for
win/win outcomes for sustainability. By
building trust over time rather than at the
point of conflict, many breakthroughs
have been pioneered that otherwise
might not have been possible.
When seeking to influence in this
manner, it is important to know at what
level to pitch and what arena to play in.
We have often seen managers and team
leaders pitching their interests at too low
a level within their own and/or their
stakeholder’s organisation where there is
insufficient decision-making authority to
influence outcomes. This often results in
a situation of prolonged impasse, and
sometimes the demise of critical
relationships.
Knowing the most judicious level at which
to influence requires knowledge of the
organisational structures as well as the
power politics of stakeholder
organisations/groups. This includes
having insight into their formal and
informal lines of power to mobilise the
involvement of critical people sooner
rather than later.
At a micro level, paying attention to the
details of discussions such as where
meetings are conducted, how to dress
and what language to use can also make
an important difference. It is well
documented that Nelson Mandela took
time to deeply study his ‘adversaries’
prior to meeting them so that he
understood their values, passions,
aspirations and pressures. He crafted his
input to conversations accordingly. He is
known to have even studied Afrikaans
poetry to develop a deep understanding
of the thinking processes of his white
compatriots. He argued the need for this
depth of inquiry when accused by his
black brothers of ‘crossing to the other
side’.
In our

38
August 2014
experience, it is critical for leaders to
develop their knowledge and
understanding of the needs and world-
view of their constituents – this is
fundamental for building the trust that is
usually necessary before others open up
to being persuaded and thereby changed.
Another mechanism for influencing
through the lens of power is to engage
key influencers within and outside the
project organisation to take on an
auxiliary role in support of the project’s
strategic agenda. It is important that
these influencers are well placed as
authoritative voices in their localised
arenas if they are to have impact.
Some leaders encourage an element of
‘constructive irreverence’ across their
project’s culture. What this means is that
the voices of challenge, contrarian inquiry
and creativity, disagreement and
resistance are given a vehicle for
expression, exploration and problem-
solving. If they are driven underground,
we all know how easy it is for them to
gather force and drive wedges between
teams at times when there needs to be
agreement, coherence, alignment and
integration.
The wisdom to embrace and work with
disagreement and resistance in this
fashion is borne of the realisation that all
voices have a relevance and a
contribution to make, especially those
which are in dissent. Often it is those
moments of impasse or contrarianism
that, if worked with, deliver quantum
breakthroughs in thinking and problem-
solving that can elevate project
functioning to a qualitatively new level of
effectiveness.
There is wisdom
in recognising
that all voices
have a
contribution to
make, especially
those in dissent
In summary, managing the political
dimensions of project life is an integral
part of effectively leading and managing.
Every aspect of project life is, in a sense,
a political activity, involving differing if
not conflicting levels of interest, power
and influence for potential gains and
costs.
A skilled leader understands and
embraces this reality, and seeks to
master the many opportunities this
awareness throws up, for constructively
opening up and shaping the pathways to
moving forward.

39
August 2014
CONCLUSION:
The successful delivery
of mega projects is the
exception, not the norm.
It is often assumed that
if good structures,
systems and processes
are instituted from the
outset, and highly skilled
teams and individuals
are allowed to get on
with the job in the best
interests of the project,
that success should
ensue. This frequently is
not the case. Our
research tells us that it
is in what happens in the
spaces between the
‘parts’, that is ‘the
relationships’ (be that
between people,
concepts, policies, plans,
systems, data, interests)
that success or failure is
most likely determined.
Mega projects require
that these relationships
be not only forged, but
continuously re-worked
in the cauldrons of
challenge, difference and
need for their greatest
value to be extracted.
Image: Relationships
We have sufficient mega projects ‘hardware’ available to
us now (i.e. technologies, systems, processes,
methodologies) to cater to the needs and challenges
which mega projects typically throw up. Yet the facts on
mega project failure rates tell us this is not sufficient. It is
in what brings these to life – that is, how people organise
these and themselves over time – that determines how
successful they are in their collective endeavours. For
mega projects are really one of society’s grand-scale
experiments in collective human self-organisation. Real
brilliance only results when a critical mass of ‘the
collective’ attains a state of performance- that of ‘inter-
dependence in motion’. For this to be achieved, it
demands a palpably shared commitment to the same
vision, goals and values, and that the parts (including
people) remain dynamically in relationship with each
other.
There is no silver bullet
– except the realisation
that bringing all parts
together as ‘poetry in
motion’ is as much an
act of artistry as science
The real question then, is how to shape the Mega Project
environment to induce this to happen. In the latter part
of this Paper, we have posited that for this there is no
silver bullet, except the understanding that the creation
of such an environment is as much an act of artistry as a
process of science, and involves multiple angles of
coordinated intervention. We have identified some of
these as examples.
The challenges of successfully delivering mega projects
will only increase as we expand into harsher terrains,
deeper waters, and more politically and culturally
complex environments. Our participants acknowledged
that the challenges 20 years from now are only beginning
to be grasped – the burgeoning impact of social media, a
more informed, engaged and expectant public, increasing
levels of scrutiny, issues with accessing venture capital,
the impact of the fast-pace of development in automation
and robotics, just to name a few. These will only draw
more on our human capacity to engage in collective
innovation – through relationship.

40
August 2014
REFERENCE LIST
Paper – ‘Mega Project Success Factors’ by Sue Dyer, International Partnering Institute,
Livermore, Canada 2011
‘Organizations and Leaders Make or Break Projects’ by Partha S. Ghosh, David E.A. Williams,
Philip Askew, Vikrant Mulgund (sourcing SBC Capital Projects Research, 2012)
http://www.sbc.slb.com/Our_Ideas/Energy_Perspectives/Summer12_Content/Summer%2012_Or
ganizations.aspx
Book – ‘Industrial Mega Projects – Concepts, Strategies and Practices for Success’ by Edward
W Merrow, Founder and CEO of Independent Project Analysis Inc (IPA), Pub John Wiley &
Sons, Inc 2011
Paper – ‘The Seven Deadly Sins in Industrial Megaprojects’ by Andrew F Griffith, Director of
the IPA Institute
Paper (Parts 1, 2, 3) – ‘How to Successfully Manage Your Mega Project’ 2012
Paper – ‘Challenges of E & P Megaproject Delivery’ by Carlo Procaccini, Andrew Lea-Cox,
Willaim de Hoop Scheffer, 2012
Paper – ‘Executing Mega Projects and Key Lessons Learned’ by Azfar Shaukat, Mott
MacDonald Ltd 2012
Paper – ‘Speed Kills – Megaprojects Around the World Fail by a Staggering 65%” Interview
of Ed Morrow’ by Ali Klaver, 2012
“Megaprojects – Challenges and Lessons Learned” 2013 Procedia – Social & Behavioural
Sciences (No 349-357) Youcef J-T Zidane, Agnar Johansen, Anandasivakumar Ekambarum
Human-synergistics.com.au, (2014). Life Styles Inventory™ (LSI). [online] Available at:
http://www.human-
synergistics.com.au/Solutions/DevelopingIndividuals/LifeStylesInventoryIndividual.aspx
[Accessed 29 Aug. 2014].
Virgin Australia, Culture & Values viewed Sept 2014 http://www.virginaustralia.com/au/en/about-
us/careers/culture-and-values/
Project Management Institute (PMI) ‘The High Cost of Low Performance’ Feb 2014
http://www.pmi.org/~/media/PDF/Business-Solutions/PMI_Pulse_2014.ashx viewed August
2014
A range of additional books and papers were also reviewed:
“Big decisions, big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects” 2002 Transport Policy
No.9. Bruzelius, N; Fkkyvjerg, B; Rothengatter, W.
“Maximizing strategic value from megaprojects: The influence of information-feed on
decision-making by the project manager” 2012 International Journal of Project Management
(Vol 30 Is 6)
“Transformational leadership in a project-based environment: a comparative study of the
leadership styles of project manager and line managers” 2004 International Journal of
Project Management (No 609-617) Keegan, A; Den Hartog, D
“Assessment of most critical success factors for mega construction projects in Pakistan”
2013 Life Science Journal
Wilber, K. (2000). “A theory of everything”. 1st ed. Boston: Shambhala.
Kotter, J. (1990). “A force for change”. 1st ed. New York: Free Press.
Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (2002). “Reframing the path to school leadership”. 1st ed. Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Klein, L WHITE PAPER Social Complexity in Project Management | SEgroup © 10/2012

41
August 2014
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Alignment: the extent to which individuals, teams, functions, stakeholders et al engage in
coordinated activities and behaviours that are linked to the vision and strategic goals of the
organisation/project
Business Plans: set of business goals, the reasons they are believed attainable, and the plan for
reaching those goals.
Culture: The behaviours, ideas, stories and rituals of a group, team, organisation, community of
society - ‘the way we do things around here’.
Deliverables: the actionable outcomes arising from strategic and operational plans – typically set
to timeframe
FID: Final Investment Decision - determination made by directors and/or management as to how,
when, where and how much capital will be spent on investment opportunities. The decision often
follows research to determine costs and returns for each option.
Foundational Principles: the underpinning notions that serve to organise the themes and areas of
data analysis in Keogh Consulting mega projects research analysis
Front End Loading (FEL): process for conceptual development of projects involving strategic
project planning to shape the project
Function: a set of activities, performed by a business unit yielding specific results towards the
project outcomes under specific business unit responsibilities.
Goals: The purpose towards which the project is directed (longer term)
Governance: degree of clarity and alignment regarding project vision, strategy and objectives
HSE: Health Safety and Environment
Implementation plans: documents that record and provide structured thinking/planning around
how initiatives will be implemented
Initiative: a set of projects and activities that deliver outcomes and benefits related to strategic
and project objectives
Key Functional Areas: the areas identified (via Keogh Consulting research) as significant factors to
mega project success.
Mega project: projects worth in excess of $1 Billion
Major project: projects worth under $500 million
Objectives: the specific results of the project – to be delivered within a timeframe to achieve
project purpose (mid to short term)
Recurring Critical Themes: the emergent themes related to mega project success that arose
from Keogh Consulting research data analysis
Stakeholders: persons, groups, entities that have an vested interest in the project

Appendix A :
Data Trends Analysis
42
Keogh Consulting – Mega Projects White Paper
Appendix A – Data Trends Analysis
8.75
9.14
8.05
7.82
9.06
8.43
8.53
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
FRONT END LOADING
GOVERNANCE
PROJECT MANAGEMENT…
CONTRACTING &…
PEOPLE & ORGANISATIONS
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
TECHNICAL CHALLENGES
Key Functions Responses
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Data Trends Analysis
The purpose behind the gathering of this basic data was to depict a general trend around the areas
identified as critical to Mega Project success.
Description of Percentage Results – Table 1.
The Results were obtained by averaging the score
for each functional area.
It is important to note, that each Functional Area
ranged in number of itemised questions – from 3-
13. As we took an average of the score across 26
responses, this does not directly affect the
averages across the items.
The average scores are from 1-10.
Description of Percentage Results – Table 2.
Percentage results have been calculated on the grouped Likert Scale responses in Part A of the
Keogh Consulting Questionnaire.
We grouped the categories as follows:
Score of 1-2 on Likert Scale Not important
As we are diving into the success factors
of Mega Projects, many of the questions
asked within our Likert Scale
questionnaire received scores between 5
and 10 (typically higher on the
‘importance to success’ factor)
Score of 3-4 on Likert Scale Somewhat Important
Score of 5-6 on Likert Scale Important
Score of 7-8 on Likert Scale Highly Important
Score of 9-10 on Likert Scale Critically Important
These groups were then calculated into a percentage per itemized response under the “7 Key
Functional Areas”.
For example – all participants interviewed classified the Item : ‘Project leadership is passionately
committed to delivering on time, on budget, operationally ‘fit-for-purpose’ as either a 9 or 10 on the
Likert Scale – thus providing 100% as ‘Critically important’ to Mega Projects’ success.

megaprojects white paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to megaprojects white paper

Similar to megaprojects white paper (20)

megaprojects white paper