Answer To: PPMP20012 Tute 4,5, 6 & 7 2 PPMP 20012: Tutorial 4, 5, 6 & 7 Essay Assessment Your task is to write...
Anju Lata answered on May 06 2020
IMPORTANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING TO A PROJECT 4
IMPORTANCE OF SYSTEMS THINKING TO A PROJECT
ASSIGNMENT
PPMP 20012
CQ University Australia
INTRODUCTION
Systems thinking to a project involve the whole decision management throughout the life cycle of the project or system (Mele, Pels and Polese,2010). It includes identification, characterization and evaluation of possible alternatives for a decision during the lifecycle of the system and selection of most appropriate course of action.
The studies reveal that there must be extensive analysis of all the input information while evaluating all the potential outcomes of a decision. According to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015, the process of decision making includes many stakeholders, various competing preferences, considerable uncertainty and notable consequences.
The assignment analyzes all the aspects about importance of systems thinking in terms of General systems management, Organisational structure, Culture, Risk Management, Portfolio alignment and organisational maturity.
On 20th April 2010, an explosion erupted out through Deep Water Horizon drilling rig at Macondo well under the water of Gulf of Mexico. 11 crew members died with many injured. The fire damaged the rig and lot of oil began gushing out into the ocean water killing many water animals and destroying their habitat. The report presents a critical evaluation of BP Horizon Deep Water Oil Spills in 2010 at Gulf of Mexico, on the basis of Chief Counsel’s Report and investigates the possible reasons behind the incident (Ingersoll, Locke and Reavis,2012).
GENERAL SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT
The General Systems Management can be defined as a process of working to achieve the objectives of an Organisation (Kerzner,2013). It emphasizes the interactions and the relationships between different components of an organisation to facilitate proper functioning and effective outcomes. The Organisations with an open system of interaction between its entities and the environment makes it dynamic to adapt the changes in its environment.
For completing a project, the system management needs to define the objectives, set the plans, organize the available resources, allocate duties and responsibilities to staff, and set up controls while remaining flexible at the same time (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015). However, sometimes the ineffective leadership and ineffective communication can increase the risks of accidents in Organisations as observed in case of BP Horizons.
.
According to Chief Counsel’s Report by National Commission on BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills, at least 7 factors were mainly responsible for the failure of Management. These were ineffective leadership at the critical time, ineffective communication between the employees, ineffective management and oversight of contractors, insufficient implementation of technology, failure to execute procedures on time, low levels of training of the workforce, and failure to analyze risk.
The BP had been facing lack of effective leadership. There were consistent conflicts between the managers and there was lot of confusion about the accountability for critical decisions (Chief Counsel’s Report, p.225-226). There was inadequate communication between the employees and extreme compartmentalization of information. Whenever the Organization encountered any abnormal and malicious data, decision makers often failed to discuss it with experts to bring about the necessary solution, instead, they just took irresponsible and random decisions based on incomplete knowledge. BP onshore engineering team even after being aware of the risk with Macondo job, could not communicate the risks to its employees on the rig and to the contractors who might have helped to reduce the risks (Chief Counsel’s Report, p.228).
According to Chief Counsel’s Report,( p.228-230), the BP Company could not utilize the experts effectively. The staff on the rig was not provided adequate training about when they should contact onshore people. Even after the incident of oil spill, the communication plan was not correctly written. Nor the employees took it seriously. The site leaders on the wells never contacted the onshore people when they were finding it difficult to control the pressure in pipe during negative pressure test. The persons on the rig were unaware of their authorities and responsibilities. There was inadequate training of the staff to handle the emergency incidents (Chief Counsel’s Report, p.235-237). There was no development and installation of any advanced technology or effective monitoring equipments to guard against the blowouts.
A similar industrial explosive incident had occurred in 1947 in Texas city. It was attributed to negligence in manufacturing, labeling and packing...