BE Magazine - Volume 5, Issue 1 - (Page 47) VIEWPOINT Sources of Change: The Root Cause Could the answer be at our fingertips and we have simply failed to capitalize on it? Vern Owens ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. W ithin the ConocoPhillips Capital Projects Organization (CPO), the field execution change managed via the engineering/construction action request (ECAR) is classified as either a plan revision or performance issue. The figure depicts of changes classified into these two largest categories? Client/owner request is defined as change that is at the specific request of the CPAI representative. Engineering rework is defined as rework to make drawing or calculation corrections not driven by plan revisions, or additional construction work in the field to correct errors or omissions on engineering drawings. Number of Changes (ECARs) Client/owner Request materials Safety/environmental Other Omission Cost savings Engineering rework Other Construction rework Estimate revision Material delivery Work in plan not defined Cost savings 0 100 200 300 400 Plan Revisions Performance Issues 500 600 the categorical breakdown of the 2,204 ECARs written in the field in the period Jan. 1, 2005, through Dec. 31, 2006 (excludes definitive estimate transmittals, zero cost changes, and other no-impact clarifications). Given the two-year period of the data, 2,204 changes seems like a lot. But remember that these are all changes occurring during the construction phase of the project when the ability to influence the project’s outcome is the lowest and the cost of the change is the highest. So the impact of these 2,204 changes was actually quite large. The figure also shows that half of our change comes from client/owner request with over 500 events and engineering rework with almost 600 events. The other half of the 2,204 changes is scattered across the remaining categories. What is the source Put simply, client/owner request comes from changes dictated by us during execution, and engineering rework is directly related to the quality of the product produced by us via our engineering/procurement contractors. The common element in both types of change is us. It would seem as though we may be our own worst enemy. Even though we have tied each change to a major category, that really doesn’t help us understand the true source of the change or to resolve the change down to the root-cause level. For example, when we state that a change is a performance issue due to engineering rework, what does that really mean? It sounds like something had to be done more than once, or that more effort was expended in the field due to a lack of information. The answer could be something as innocent as a designer who didn’t have ready access to a specification so he or she made a flawed decision. Just categorizing the change at a high level does nothing to help us fix the source problem. We must continue to bore down to the root cause if we are to understand and eliminate unnecessary change. There are a number of techniques for getting to the root cause of a situation. We use Tap Root in the HSE environment. The “5 Whys” is another technique rooted in the Six Sigma process. Whatever methodology we choose shouldn’t require a laborious process, but until we employ some form of root-cause analysis and integrate it into our change-management process, we will be destined to repeat the same mistakes. In the absence of a defined process requirement, every person involved in the change management process should be asking “why?” They should document their findings as part of the change-approval process, and they should act to eliminate root causes. It is essential to truly becoming a high-performance organization, and it is fundamental to our creation of a Zero Change Culture. This article, the third in a series of articles on change management by Vern Owens, was originally published in CPO Newsletter. Copyright 2007 ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission. About Vern Owens Vern Owens has lived and worked in Alaska for 16 years, initially with ARCO Alaska, Phillips Petroleum Company, and currently with ConocoPhillips Alaska. He has held several positions within the Capital Projects Group, including project leader, construction supervisor, and currently construction manager. Volume 5, Issue 1 | BE MAGAZINE 47
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.