Click on a word tag to view related posts

Showing posts with label impact. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impact. Show all posts

How to Understand the Real Needs of your Stakeholders in Oil and Gas Industry

In the previous article, I outlined what it takes to establish an effective roadmap to manage non-technical risks in the Oil and Gas industry. There were six key themes identified which were considered essential in ensuring robust Non-Technical Risk Management. This article will look at the first of these six themes, True Understanding of Stakeholder Needs. It will detail the building blocks, steps and processes involved in the roadmap to meet each objective.

A Nenets herder leads reindeer under a pipeline at the gas field in Siberia.
Copyright National Geographic.  

In order to ensure that the plan you put in place works, it is important to define what success looks like. At this point, the objectives are to gain and maintain community support; to seek a competitive advantage; to have a true stakeholder value proposition in place, that was verified by them; to have streamlined regulatory processes in place. To support these four main objectives, there are key steps you need to take. 


1. The First Rule is to Know your Community

The first rule is to know the local community, key stakeholders and influencers. It is key to establishing robust building blocks for success. All too often this essential principle is either not carried out correctly, or even worse, becomes a paper exercise based on theories.

To do it well, you need to start with robust and objective Stakeholder Influence Mapping, which is designed, tested and verified with the stakeholders. It must be conducted early on, well before there is any physical footprint and well before preparations such as regulatory permits or licenses are sought. Moving forward with development without a deep understanding of the political and social landscape is fatal and will guarantee project failure, or delay.

Here is how you do it.

Establish local presence with the right people early

Having representatives on the ground who identify the key people to be involved -- who they influence and who influences them -- is a basic prerequisite of mapping out the landscape. These representatives need to be local, well-respected, politically-neutral and have strong relationships and connections with the stakeholders at all levels. 

The process of building the relationships and having direct communications with the communities and their leadership is essential to understand the facts about the country, its people and who to deal with.

Ground truthing and triangulation of facts

All too often the relationship building and gathering of stakeholder information are tainted -- or even incorrect and sometimes divisive -- as that information is either false or biased in some way. So, it is important to use multiple sources of data and ensure the validation of facts from alternate sources. Using genuine enquiry methodology and testing assumptions are key. Going ahead on incorrect assumptions can lead to serious adverse consequences for the project.

Internal controls and protocols for communications and engagements

Controlling the communication flow to ensure key stakeholders are correctly identified and engaged appropriately, together with the establishment of a protocol in communication is essential.

There must be one flow of communication, with no distractions and no misunderstanding on messaging. This will ensure that there is no overpromising and that commitments are kept to. A robust “customer relationship management system” with tracking of issues; complaints and records of dialogues is key to ensuring correct controls.


2. Community Support and Gaining a competitive advantage

Once you know your community, your key stakeholders, and the tracking system is established and working well, the ongoing effective management of stakeholder relations is a continuous marathon of time and resource commitment, which takes the consistent effort at all levels of the project.

From past experiences and histories of successful projects, the following elements are deemed to be crucial:
  1. Maintaining a connection to the community face to face, on the ground and at an almost constant level. This is never “ad-hoc” or on a “fly-in” basis, but a consistent presence
  2. Deliver on commitments and do as you say, this is why a robust communication protocol is so important, every commitment and promise must only be from those that have the authority and accountability to carry it out and it must be recorded, tracked and closed out.
  3. Address issues early and effectively - this is self-explanatory but needs a system in place as described before. It becomes so important to build up trust and understanding with the communities and other stakeholders.
  4. Personal drive and commitment to see things through- particularly from senior management, and those with the authority to make changes or get things done.
  5. Proactive and personal relationships - at all levels of the project.
  6. Authority and visibility of leadership - address the issues quickly and effectively. The most senior person on the project MUST have the authority to address issues and deliver on commitments without being vetoed by Head Office.
  7. Build trust early - There is a need to be open with Regulators and Community on dilemmas and impacts. Tell the whole story early and be as transparent as you can. Explain what the future will look like, good and bad. Communities will fear the worst and often sharing the reality will be less of an issue than first thought. Hiding potential issues will only deepen suspicion in the community and other stakeholders. 
  8. Ability to genuinely enquire and understand - is an important personal attribute that everyone on the project must have.
  9. Leadership buy-in and supportive management - Investing the time and resources to resolve the issues and deliver on commitments


3. True stakeholder value proposition

Large companies often assume (to their peril) that they know “what’s best for stakeholders”, either through past experience on what has worked in other parts of the world or by not carrying out a thorough enough analysis and making assumptions.

Complying with the First Rule will ensure a deep understanding of the stakeholder needs, issues, aspirations and concerns. Only then there can be work done into the development of a value proposition by finding out what is meaningful and of value to the community. Genuine enquiry and learning from engagements and relationships will reinforce the understanding of what is required.

Fundamentally, initiatives must be aligned with community needs and not some “bolt-on” that has worked somewhere else in the world. To guarantee success there should be alignment with local, regional and national plans so that the development of any Social Investment programme is focussed on the key issues -- health, unemployment, social issues -- and create shared value. This needs to be tested and verified with stakeholders regularly, ideally through a formal community-based forum. Ideally, the project needs to get to a place where there is a solution-building with stakeholders to address dilemmas.


4. Streamlined regulatory processes

All too often projects are delayed due to the lack of progress in the regulatory processes. Often this is a result of a lack of alignment between the Project and the Regulator -- each has different priorities, that are at times in conflict with each other.

To overcome this, it has been found that having a personal connection to regulators is very important. Building the relationship to be as open as possible, where issues and long-term goals are shared, leads to sharing and solving the problems.  

Sharing what the long-term future looks like, the issues and challenges that may bring, and finding solutions to address any hurdles to progress -- make the Regulator part of the team that solves the problems.

Co-creation of a regulatory framework, with boundary conditions, reporting parameters and measurements, can lead to a more efficient system and save time and money on both sides, without compromising safety or standards. Having several different channels with the agencies to build relationships with the Government means alignment is key. All interfaces must be coordinated through a focal point.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Phil Dyer. Recognized as someone who supports change, drives and changes behaviours, and creates a supportive environment, while encouraging risk-taking and supporting a reward culture. Phil had a key role in advising Directors on issues and stakeholder management and developed key relationships with senior management. Working at both local/national/regional and group level and managing diverse teams, both virtual and actual, he established good networking skills with functions and business at all levels in the organisation from Directors to an operational level.


The article was written specially for Think Tank AlterContacts.

The Establishment of a Schematic Road Map for Major Oil and Gas Projects to Effectively Manage Non-Technical Risks

Non-technical risks (NTR) refer to all risks and opportunities that arise from the interactions of a business with its broad range of external stakeholders. This includes interactions with regulatory, public, socio-economic, governmental and environmental organizations, for the management of related aspects of a project’s operations.

Communities' resistance is one of the key Non-technical risks

Management of Risk in Oil and Gas Companies

Oil and Gas companies pride themselves on managing risks, putting into place effective mitigation to ensure both the technical and financial aspects of any large project are identified and managed, to deliver on time and on budget. 

Because oil and gas projects are major engineering undertakings, there is the tendency to apply ‘engineering’ sense to addressing the NTRs or to underestimate its impact on project delivery and value. 

Non-technical risk does not lend itself to the logic of risk management and quantification of the way the extractive industry has traditionally managed the technical risk. Traditional risk management where engineering solutions are applied to problems will not eliminate NTRs. It might be possible through the use of technology to reduce the environmental footprint of a project but that does not completely eliminate the social impact.

However, the impact of non-technical risks on project delivery is not easy to quantify. There are numerous cases where the project manager has failed to recognise the significance of non-technical risk, or the project team and the company have a wrong understanding of what non-technical risk are, and hence, unable to figure out how best to deal with it. 

The tendency is then to focus on the technical challenges which are in the ‘comfort zone’ of the engineering expert leading the project. The non-technical issues are then left to the less capable hands within the team. They are treated as an “add-on” and not as an integral part of the project.


What is the Impact of Underestimating Non-technical risks?

Historical data informs us that non-technical risks are the most common cause of project delays ( up to 70 per cent of major capital projects are subject to significant delays or cost overruns as a result of non-technical risk (NTR)), and have the potential to cause significant erosion of project value when they manifest at project level and in extreme cases significant portfolio value erosion, when they manifest at corporate or industry level. 

According to Breemer and Mckeeman (2012), NTRs of this nature account for up to 70 -75% of cost and schedule failures in projects in the form of schedule delays and cost overruns, local deal opportunities, and a host of stakeholder related issues. 

In its study of the cost of company-community conflict in the extractive industry, Davis and Franks (2014) discovered that companies incur substantial cost and value erosion from community disruption. The study identified the most frequent costs as those arising from lost productivity due to temporary shutdowns or delay, while the greatest costs were the costs in terms of the lost value linked to future projects, expansion plans, or sales that did not go ahead. The costs most often overlooked by companies were indirect costs resulting from staff time being diverted to managing conflict – particularly senior management time, including in some cases that of the CEO. 

In the paper, ‘Managing human rights impact in a world of converging expectation’, John Ruggie (2011) illustrated how a failure to develop a cross-functional strategic response to non- technical risks related to social impact can have a devastating effect. A company in the extractive industry suffered $6.5 billion value erosion over 24 months due to non-technical risk, including community opposition and delays in regulatory approval. 

Failure to manage community relations well could result in prolonged community opposition which in turn leads to denial of planning permit by a regulatory agency. All these will result in significant project delays with associated cost overruns. Late submission of application for a regulatory permit could mean the permit is not available when project activity should commence. 

Data shows over 124 major North American Energy Projects were delayed between 2008-2014. Of those projects, 33% were delayed for purely non-technical reasons while a large majority included non-technical reasons. The total estimated cost for these non-technical delays is estimated at $118 billion USD. This is because non-technical delays take the longest to address and are the most expensive to resolve.

Understandably, senior executives across the energy industry commonly view non-technical risk as one of their top three current concerns.


How to Maximise Value and Mitigate NTR Impacts

Recognising that there were opportunities to improve the cycle of project development, significantly improve project value as well as enhance the company’s access to new opportunities, a major oil and gas company developed a company-wide best practice process for the identification and early management of NTRs at the project level. 

As the project lead, I was tasked with identifying NTR best practices and successes in projects that had enabled project delivery and use this data to develop a tool-kit to be shared with, and implemented in, the organisation. By identifying best practice, which had demonstrated success, rather than focussing on lessons to be learned, this was a unique approach.

Basic factual data, together with quantitative and qualitative information was obtained through a series of structured interviews with key project personnel who had demonstrated success in project delivery. Using more than one member of the project team in the interview process, enabled the triangulation of the facts and ensured the data was verified.

Semi-structured interviews were set up which followed a format of initial broad open-ended questions, encouraging the interviewee to tell a story and then using funneling techniques to gain more specific information on critical areas identified. The role of the semi-structured interviews was to collect facts, views and opinions from key Project personnel.

The interviews were designed to be loosely structured, the focus being on exploring the interviewees’ perspectives with the emphasis on allowing and facilitating the interviewee (s) to express ideas and thoughts on the subject being explored.

Based on open-ended questions, followed by further probing and investigation to elaborate or illustrate the answer with examples, the structure of the interviews allowed for the production of rich and complex data.

Each interview was recorded and transcribed word for word. These data were analysed to identify themes, patterns and categories that enabled the delivery of a final report that demonstrated how effective management of NTR had made these projects successful.

The Report that was developed, identified 6 key themes which were considered essential in ensuring robust NTR management. The Themes were:
  1. True Understanding of Stakeholder Needs
  2. Drive Front End Loading
  3. Get One Team Fully Resourced
  4. Work the Stakeholder Matrix
  5. Ask for Help Early
  6. A Real TECOP Integrated Schedule

The next articles in this series will explain each of the 6 Themes and detail the building blocks, steps and processes involved in the road-map to meet each objective and include what success looks like. 



ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Phil Dyer. Recognized as someone who supports change, drives and changes behaviors, and creates a supportive environment, while encouraging risk-taking and supporting a reward culture. Phil had a key role in advising Directors on issues and stakeholder management and developed key relationships with senior management. Working at both local/national/regional and group level and managing diverse teams, both virtual and actual, he established good networking skills with functions and business at all levels in the organisation from Directors to operational level.


The article was written specially for Think Tank AlterContacts.